Patterico's Pontifications

6/15/2013

NSA Discloses the Breathtaking Scope of Its Claimed Powers, Or, Maybe Snowden Was Right!; UPDATE: Nadler Retracts/Clarifies

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:01 pm



This is about as startling a confirmation as I have heard yet:

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 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 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.

I thought all this had the advantage of legislative oversight. So, um, why are we just hearing about this now?

That is a rhetorical question.

I thought Snowden’s claims sounded far-fetched, although I also acknowledged that I didn’t know for sure. They’re starting to sound more near-fetched, though, aren’t they?

UPDATE: Meanwhile, our hero Snowden continues to provide classified information about our alleged efforts against the Chinese to . . . the Chinese.

UPDATE x2: Looks like the interpretation of Nadler’s comments was off base. More here.

197 Responses to “NSA Discloses the Breathtaking Scope of Its Claimed Powers, Or, Maybe Snowden Was Right!; UPDATE: Nadler Retracts/Clarifies”

  1. edward tried to warn us but everyone turned their back on him it’s just like in that movie where that one guy tried to warn everybody but everyone turned their back on him

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  2. Why doe the phrase “low-level employees” bother me so?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  3. Well, I do get the point that telling the Chinese that we hack their routers and skip the servers is bad for ‘our side’.

    It’s just I don’t see benefits for serfs with one foot in the gulag being a team player is all.

    A rented mule gets his oats now and then and a change in owners.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  4. Yes, you know I’m not that sanguine about Nadler’s word, on things;

    http://www.sumofchange.com/video.php?vid=d8898d2e9

    narciso (3fec35)

  5. btw, this means that Dianne Feinstein lied to us! Who would have thought?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  6. Nadler is a partisan blowhard, but doesn’t that make this an admission against interest?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  7. And corroboration of an accomplice informant.

    nk (875f57)

  8. 6. Rushbo had a caller following the staged Lerner confession that turned him on to the ‘protection angle’, e.g., “That’s a nice little operation you got there Pilgrim. Wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to it?”

    Anyone see that as a Snowden possibility? Unwitting actor maybe? Just putting it out there.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  9. The NSA and the Obama administration have done enormous damage to our nation by their overreach.

    They’ve irretrievably damaged the reputation of the United States as a place of relative safety for people to put their data and their information technology infrastructure. I suspect we’ll see other nations’ take enormous amounts of our internet services business away from us in the near term. If you were a European or Asian company, would you put your company information on US owned servers? Hell, no.

    And the NSA and Obama have damaged their own credibility in the public’s eyes for being trustworthy and transparent with their unprecedented hypocrisy and incompetence in handling this whole thing.

    Obama keeps finding new ways to demonstrate his utter unfitness for the job. Even five years out.

    SPQR (768505)

  10. Does this mean we don’t need a court to issue a “death warrant”?

    askeptic (2bb434)

  11. “Legislative oversight”

    Iconic oxymoron. Obamaneycare is just the poster child for the abandonment of its responsibility through its delegation of regulatory authority by the blow-comb political class–“Don’t you know who I am?”–John McCain take a bow. You too, Secretary Kerry, Alan Simpson, Tom Coburn,…

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  12. 9. Not just another pretty counselor.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  13. Alinsky’s ‘sorcerer’s apprentice’ fumbled the ball, however, let’s put this point in context;

    “Then I can say the following,” Nadler said. “We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that…In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.”

    narciso (3fec35)

  14. It’s a shame Snowden has betrayed America by sharing our secrets about our legitimate espionage.

    America needs heroes and I wish Snowden could have been one of them. It looks like he was right, at least in some general sense, to raise a loud alarm about what the NSA is doing.

    But Snowden is an example of the kind of people who have this access to surveillance over innocent Americans. He worked on this stuff. Now he’s helping China’s human rights abusing government… an atrocious thing to do. Perhaps his problem is that he’s weak and can’t resist the easy route. The NSA’s collection and lax standards for invading the privacy of American citizens is also a sign of weakness. Abusing our rights is oven the result of laziness. It’s easier, in the short term.

    I’ve heard a lot of ‘experts’ who were foaming at the mouth with rage over the Bush administration come out to laugh off the NSA’s behavior. They should be ashamed of themselves. Rep Nadler, on the other hand, has earned some respect for living up to his role of Constitutional Oversight.

    I hope more democrats and republicans can put partisanship aside about this kind of issue, as we take a hard look at what we’ve done to this country.

    Dustin (303dca)

  15. I thought all this had the advantage of legislative oversight.

    I agree with gary; that term is an oxymoron. Even before this story broke I knew we were being lied to. This program was reauthorized last year. The reauthorization passed in the House mid-year, but Harry Reid held it up until the end of the year to create an emergency situation to limit debate.

    During that time Senators like DiFi got up and lectured the Senate about the dire consequences if they didn’t pass the reauthorization bill.

    But during the course of that she kept insisting that the NSA domestic spying didn’t target US persons. Which is absurd. Domestic agents of foreign powers are 9 times out of 10 US persons. They may or may not be citizens but they’re here legally, like the Tsarnaev brothers or MAJ Hasan. That makes them US persons.

    The program couldn’t work if it didn’t target US persons.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  16. Well they have to say that, because of a certain provision of US law; section 5240

    narciso (3fec35)

  17. The program couldn’t work if it didn’t target US persons.

    That is a good point. If the NSA’s defenders were correct and the NSA can’t monitor the Nidal Hasans and Tsarnaevs and Tim Mcveighs, it’s a pretty stupid attempt to provide national security.

    So some lawyers found some dishonest way to justify saying that’s not what the NSA does. They quibble dishonestly over the word “collect” or they say this is something the NSA has done since 1950 (which is ridiculous, given technological changes).

    We deserve a chance to decide what kind of government we want, but I don’t think DC agrees. They want to domineer over us for our own good.

    Dustin (303dca)

  18. Well, narciso, as I said on another thread in another context when you say what you have to say to avoid the legal complications of complying with the law, that’s called lying.

    So they lied because they were breaking the law. Criminals do that a lot, I hear.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  19. Well that’s probably so, just the Majallah SNAFU strike, as well the hit that took out Shabwani, Steve, as SPQR points out, they have been very cavalier with the use of an effective tool,

    narciso (3fec35)

  20. The NSA and the Obama administration have done enormous damage to our nation by their overreach.

    I don’t think it’s just one facet of these ongoing stories that makes me increasingly cynical about the US government. It’s a combination of things, from Fast and Furious to the IRS. It’s the general dumbing down of our nation (the corrupt modern-day liberalism that is settling over this society — including the lunacy of political correctness run amok, which is an off-shoot of amoral-Euro-ization — that makes me wonder who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy in all of this mess.

    I disdain moral relativism, but if the US truly becomes more and more like a cross between a Mexico, France, Argentina and Greece — and a dash of Russia and China thrown in for good measure — while I certainly won’t play the leftist game of “blame America first,” I also won’t be quite so confident in touting the specialness of this nation or assuming it deserves a heaping handful of benefit of the doubt.

    I now wonder if there was something almost prophetic about this scene, which occurred exactly after the moment when the lyrics would be “…gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there…”

    Mark (d1328f)

  21. Off topic, but Bill Schmalfeldt was spanked yesterday in court. He was adjudicated a harasser, and had a peace order slapped on him.

    so today he is threatening peace orders against myself and John Hoge on a theory of Kimberlinic proportions. Read all about it, here.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b)

  22. That picture of Chinese police joined by a few civies raising their arms in the fashion reminicent of North Koreans paising their Dear Leader, only applied in a sort of smugly satisfied – one could call it unctuous couldn’t they – thumping on the Democrats version of Dear Leader.

    It’s jarring isn’t it. Don’t know about the rest of you, but my door is ajar. And I can’t find the handle.

    If this were StarTrek I’d declare myself emotionally compromised.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  23. I’ve heard no one draw the parallel, but Sebelius is “asking” Insurance Co’s to pay for the costs involved with propagandizing Obamacare to the AMERICAN people. “Asking”.
    I wonder who “asked” all of America’s phone and telecommunications companies to “Voluntarily” act in concert with the NSA?

    Gus (694db4)

  24. Gus, that’s a sad reality these days.

    According to a CEO of one phone company, when his company refused to go along with the NSA request, because it thought it was unlawful, they lost huge contracts.

    Dustin (303dca)

  25. edward tried to warn us but everyone turned their back on him it’s just like in that movie where that one guy tried to warn everybody but everyone turned their back on him

    Not me, happy feet, not me.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  26. “The NSA and the Obama administration have done enormous damage to our nation by their overreach.”

    Snowden should be pardoned by the next administration, stripped of any possibility of ever holding a security clearance again, and given a medal.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  27. I’d hold off on the medal, before we’re sure he doesn’t get anyone killed,

    narciso (3fec35)

  28. Narciso, he is in China. No medal, unless it’s lead.

    Gus (694db4)

  29. Dustin, and if it wasn’t the self-aggrandizing story of a liar like Joe Nacchio, it might even be interesting.

    SPQR (768505)

  30. I’d hold off on the medal, before we’re sure he doesn’t get anyone killed,

    Even if he does, he deserves one. His mission is to protect liberty and the Constitution.

    he is in China. No medal, unless it’s lead.

    Well he wasn’t going to get a fair shake of it in Baltimore.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  31. Dustin, and if it wasn’t the self-aggrandizing story of a liar like Joe Nacchio, it might even be interesting.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 6/15/2013

    You have a good point. I’ll concede that one.

    Dustin (303dca)

  32. Just say Mao.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  33. Former Conservative, I don’t know what breed of clown you are, but this dude has gone to China. I hate the hell out of this b.s., but the dude took his act to China. You can go to hell my friend.

    Gus (694db4)

  34. Dustin @14, you made an excellent point.

    But Snowden is an example of the kind of people who have this access to surveillance over innocent Americans. He worked on this stuff. Now he’s helping China’s human rights abusing government… an atrocious thing to do. Perhaps his problem is that he’s weak and can’t resist the easy route. The NSA’s collection and lax standards for invading the privacy of American citizens is also a sign of weakness. Abusing our rights is oven the result of laziness. It’s easier, in the short term.

    That’s exactly why we can’t buy these assurances that all that legislative and judicial branch “oversight” means our rights are being respected.

    If a s***bird like Snowden can access the information and do whatever he wants with it, so can the other s***birds.

    Oddly the greatest service Snowden may have done isn’t the leak about PRISM. It’s running off to China to betray the country. It’s an abject lesson in why we can’t trust the government with this kind of data.

    If he can violate the public trust to that extent, imagine how the others who have access to this type of data can violate the public trust.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  35. Don’t call them names, Steve, you’ll make them mad.

    nk (875f57)

  36. It is scary, Steve. The administration has done quite a number to the very concept of public trust.

    Former Conservative is coming from a good place to recognize that what Snowden exposed is awful and must be exposed. It’s a difficult conflict when the person who exposes evil is also doing evil himself, but it turns out that a most of the people in a position to reveal corruption are not the most ethical.

    The NSA and her contractors are probably not attracting the most philosophical civil libertarians out there, nor to I think they are attracting patriots.

    it’s a shame.

    Dustin (303dca)

  37. 1. edward tried to warn us but everyone turned their back on him

    Just as soon as we found out he was warning China, too. Which is only right and proper.

    it’s just like in that movie where that one guy tried to warn everybody but everyone turned their back on him

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/15/2013 @ 5:05 pm

    Guys who think it’s their right to “warn everybody” are traitors and definitely shouldn’t be getting security clearances. “Citizens of the world” types like Snowden will betray their country every time.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  38. I want to go on the record as saying that I disagree that our hard-working, dedicated civil servants monitoring my computer as I type this are s**tbirds.

    nk (875f57)

  39. If you want villainy done, you don’t hire nuns, Dustin.

    nk (875f57)

  40. If you want villainy done, you don’t hire nuns, Dustin.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/15/2013

    True, but there needs to be either some baseline of morality or some strong checks and balances.

    Here’s what I secretly suspect happen, and hopefully I don’t sound too much like Sammy Finkleman. I think Snowden straight up defected. I think the exposure of NSA’s embarrassing and unlawful activities against the American people are nothing more than a Chinese propaganda campaign (based on truth in this case).

    The USA does much the same to China when we can expose Chinese abuses, so this is a bit of a riposte.

    It’s through that lens that I view what Snowden has done.

    Dustin (303dca)

  41. Well he was likely hired to surveil foreign communications, at the base in Japan,

    narciso (3fec35)

  42. I figured there were similar surveilance posts in South Korea, watching the North,

    narciso (3fec35)

  43. Ok. I’m over it.

    Snowden revealed that the Obama Admin. (temporarily also known by the alias “U.S. Government”) has been hacking into the computer’s of individual Chinese citizens as opposed to official Chinese Gov data.

    Why would they do that? Is it possible that the Obama Admin is conducting corporate espionage on behalf of one or a group of their corporate cronies?

    Whatshisname is still in the running for hero in that case.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  44. Could be Foreign Corrupt Practices Act stuff, papertiger. We’re always catching some American company bribing some Russian or Chinese for a business advantage.

    nk (875f57)

  45. Why did this attract no interest last month?

    On Wednesday night, [Erin] Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the [Katherine Russell and Tamerlan Tsarnaev]. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

    BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

    CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

    BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

    CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

    Scrutineer (0b6bc0)

  46. Could be Chinese gangsters selling Chinese military goods to Al Qaida. Could be anything. That place lives on corruption.

    nk (875f57)

  47. Former Conservative is coming from a good place to recognize that what Snowden exposed is awful and must be exposed. It’s a difficult conflict when the person who exposes evil is also doing evil himself, but it turns out that a most of the people in a position to reveal corruption are not the most ethical.

    Dustin, that’s why I say when the NSA story shakes out there will be no heroes. Just different variations of villains. Snowden included.

    It’s been clear for a while that Snowden chose the PRC as refuge because he’s got something to trade. His high-minded rhetoric is complete and utter horse****.

    It’s possible to expose evil without doing evil. For instance there’s this guy.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-whistleblower-william-binney-explains-nsa-surveillance-2012-8

    National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney explains how the secretive agency runs its pervasive domestic spying apparatus in a new piece by Laura Poitras in The New York Times.

    Binney—one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in NSA history—worked for the Defense Department’s foreign signals intelligence agency for 32 years before resigning in late 2001 because he “could not stay after the NSA began purposefully violating the Constitution.”

    I don’t know if I entirely believe him. I think he would have had to stay on long enough to participate in the purposeful violations of the Constitution. And if he did, and he resigned in late 2001, then those violations preceded the war on terror since by any measure September 2001 is late in the year. But at least he didn’t run to Hong Kong and spill his guts. That’s evil, and that’s the course Snowden took. Binney may have compromised his ethics at certain points in his career but at least he stayed here.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  48. Why did this attract no interest last month?

    On Wednesday night, [Erin] Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the [Katherine Russell and Tamerlan Tsarnaev]. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

    BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

    CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

    BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

    CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

    It attracted my interest. But I didn’t know if he was bullshitting or not (I expected not). Now we know he wasn’t.

    Further, this isn’t Internet traffic, not even private voice and video calls (and file transfers and yada yada) which are all apparently captured. This would be regular everyday telephone calls, which indicates that more than “metadata” is captured from phone calls.

    Welcome to America, land of the free. Oh, and country that imprisons more people per capita than any country on Earth, mostly for voluntary transactions people make. Almost none of which were illegal for the first 130+ years after the country’s founding. But this is improvement. Or something.

    Yay war on drugs. Yay surveillance police state. And don’t even get me started on the militarization of almost all the police forces at all levels with umpteen SWAT teams.

    Reducing the size of the military and police and courts and jails? Hell — it’s become a national security issue, if freedom counts for anything to the purpose of the USA. My prediction? Libertarian Party at least doubles its vote share in the next election. And it increases its share in subsequent years until it is finally viable. (Or until it’s crushed/subverted by the state and “The Democratic/Republican Party”. But I repeat myself.)

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  49. @ Could be Chinese gangsters selling Chinese military goods to Al Qaida. Could be anything. That place lives on corruption.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/15/2013 @ 8:01 pm

    We haven’t heard anything from the French yet? I mean as long as we’re pulling rabbits out of our hat.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  50. peedoffamerican @43, you need to reread that article. Snowden is giving up the individual IP addresses that the US targeted. That’s not at all the same thing as targeting individual citizens.

    Also the targets may have been civilian and not military, but that’s not a distinction with any meaning in places like China. Computers at state research institutes and other places that hack into our systems on behalf of the CHICOM government still have IP addresses.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  51. Why did this attract no interest last month?

    On Wednesday night, [Erin] Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the [Katherine Russell and Tamerlan Tsarnaev]. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

    BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

    CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

    BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

    CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

    It attracted my interest. But I didn’t know if he was BSing or not (I expected not). Now we know he wasn’t.

    Further, this isn’t Internet traffic, not even private voice and video calls (and file transfers and yada yada) which are all apparently captured. This would be regular everyday telephone calls, which indicates that more than “metadata” is captured from phone calls.

    Welcome to America, land of the free. Oh, and country that imprisons more people per capita than any country on Earth, mostly for voluntary transactions people make. Almost none of which were illegal for the first 130+ years after the country’s founding. But this is improvement. Or something.

    Yay war on drugs. Yay surveillance police state. And don’t even get me started on the militarization of almost all the police forces at all levels with umpteen SWAT teams.

    Reducing the size of the military and police and courts and jails? Hell — it’s become a national security issue, if freedom counts for anything to the purpose of the USA. My prediction? Libertarian Party at least doubles its vote share in the next election. And it increases its share in subsequent years until it is finally viable. (Or until it’s crushed/subverted by the state and “The Democratic/Republican Party”. But I repeat myself.)

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  52. We’re using ECHELON for France.

    nk (875f57)

  53. A more interesting bit, re the Tsarnaev’s, in the Mueller heearing:

    “His name had come up in two other cases,” Mueller said in response to questions from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). “Those two other cases, the individuals had their cases closed. So, he was one or two person [sic] away.”

    narciso (3fec35)

  54. Right or wrong, up or down. There is a choice. At some point it was called the American way.

    The first part starts like this:

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,

    When in the Course of human events…

    The important part starts like this:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…

    So we go around and around parsing the words of elected representatives and worry about who did this that or the other and we forget that phrase:

    We the People.

    We don’t have a giant bureaucracy spying on us because of this party or that. We don’t have an unjust system of jurisprudence by chance. We don’t have elected representatives beholden to special interests by fiat.

    We have Chicago-style politics running our government because we wanted it.

    We have renegade government agencies because we wanted them.

    We have courts that disregard the strict construct of the Constitution because we wanted them.

    It’s not their fault. It is ours. We are the people.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  55. Also the targets may have been civilian and not military, but that’s not a distinction with any meaning in places like China.

    I’m looking at Bing search of the suffix CN. The number of China’s “.cn” domain names has reached 1.09 million, according to a survey released… – from 2006. Looks like private businesses to me.

    Regardless of how much juice the Chinese Government squeezes out of them, they still seem to be independant actors as opposed to representatives of the state.

    That makes it a very big distinction, especially with regard to Edward.
    Whatshisname isn’t divulging state security secrets, he is uncovering the theft of intellectual property from third parties by an international and domestic criminal who incidentally holds office.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  56. We get the government we deserve, ag80.

    I think we’ve had long enough that essentially the population has accepted the loss of freedom that occurred on 9/11. Now they have an additional opportunity to say “no” to this. It’s easy to blame Obama or politicians, but you’re right that the ultimate responsibility rests on the people.

    Dustin (cc9922)

  57. I blame Obama and the politicians who support him. No matter who you voted for, we all have a right to expect government leaders to obey the Constitution that each one of them swore an oath to support and defend. Listening to our conversations and capturing the details of every call, email and personal transaction — all apparently without a warrant — is not something we should have expected, let alone our fault.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  58. Regardless of how much juice the Chinese Government squeezes out of them, they still seem to be independant actors as opposed to representatives of the state.

    Yes. A ruse depends very much on appearance. How things seem.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  59. Dustin:

    That’s all I’m saying.

    The left is cold and calculating. The right is cold and aloof.

    I am fast becoming a libertarian. Not because that ilk is correct. There is so much that libertarians can’t or won’t accept about reality.

    Regardless, libertarianism is becoming an attractive point of view despite its prominent adherents.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  60. NSA Discloses the Breathtaking Scope of Its Claimed Powers, Or, Maybe Snowden Was Right!

    — Yeppers! As it has been from Day 1, this isn’t about Snowden; it’s about the veracity of what he has revealed.

    Icy (df794a)

  61. 60. NSA Discloses the Breathtaking Scope of Its Claimed Powers, Or, Maybe Snowden Was Right!

    – Yeppers! As it has been from Day 1, this isn’t about Snowden; it’s about the veracity of what he has revealed.

    Comment by Icy (df794a) — 6/15/2013 @ 10:20 pm

    As Snowden continues to leak, Snowden becomes an issue.

    They are two different but linked issues. The fact is it’s now about Snowden, too. It didn’t have to be this way, but I didn’t plan it to be this way. Snowden did.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  62. In 2008, then-senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the law that gave birth to the PRISM program, in which the NSA gathers Internet data for investigations that it insists are only aimed at non-American terror suspects living abroad. This is given wording of the law and feeds in place almost completely implausible. They’re lying to us.

    Only Snowden is telling truth if the CNET article is accurate and Nadler has a functioning brain…which he hasn’t previously been noted for.

    RiverRat (507a91)

  63. Oddly the greatest service Snowden may have done isn’t the leak about PRISM. It’s running off to China to betray the country. It’s an abject lesson in why we can’t trust the government with this kind of data.

    If he can violate the public trust to that extent, imagine how the others who have access to this type of data can violate the public trust.

    Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 7:40 pm

    Would you have kept that secret, Steve? If you were in whatsisnames shoes, forgetting about the method, would you have kept that secret?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  64. DRJ, I blame our politicians too, but until the people themselves care about this and demand their rights, I blame the people.

    That said, you’re right that every individual has a basic human right to not be spied on, to criticize the government without the IRS attempting to oppress them, etc. We as Americans are entitled to a government constrained to an honest and reasonable reading of the constitution, but I believe that went out the window a while ago.

    Do the people even understand that?

    Dustin (cc9922)

  65. The discussions above are amazing in that they seem to be neglecting the 900 pound gorilla that is sitting in the middle of the living room.

    Consider:
    1. As Icy points out, what Snowden has revealed is the issue, not Snowden.
    2. Nadler has confirmed that Snowden is truthful.
    3. Hte One has shown himself perfectly willing to use government agencies to harass his political opponents. The IRS is certainly implicated, and the recent testimony of the FBI Director makes it clear that that agency has also been captured.
    4. Politicians put a great value on knowing their opponents plans. For example, Nixon’s Plumbers got caught breaking into a Watergate apartment in an attempt to bug democratic campaign headquarters.
    5. A relative non-entity like Snowden appears to have had the ability to perform Plumber-like actions. After five years, the NSA must have more than a few Obama operatives in operational positions in the NSA.
    6. Romney had a software meltdown on the day of the election in his GOTV activities.
    7. It doesn’t take too much imagination to connect Romney’s difficulties with intentional interferrence by the Obama campaign. Something as simple as flooding Romney’s servers would have done the trick.
    8. Assuming that Romney’s campaign security was totatlly compromised, what other actions might the Obama campaign have initiated to thwart him?

    The first time I attempted to post this note, my computer has a blue-screen crash right about this point. Hmmm … pressing submit now

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  66. peedoffamerican @43, you need to reread that article. Snowden is giving up the individual IP addresses that the US targeted. That’s not at all the same thing as targeting individual citizens.

    Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 8:20 pm

    Who in Hell are you talking to Steve? This my first comment on this thread. Do you maybe have me confused with papertiger? He made the post at 43.

    peedoffamerican (127915)

  67. Sorry, my bad. That’s why I usually copy and paste when I replay to a comment.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  68. 64. Would you have kept that secret, Steve? If you were in whatsisnames shoes, forgetting about the method, would you have kept that secret?

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/15/2013 @ 10:55 pm

    If by “that” you mean the stuff he’s leaking to China about China then, yeah, he should have kept his word and kept that a secret. I would have most definitely kept “that” a secret.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  69. Well, here’s the question, and it’s not directed at anyone in particular: if you were an NSA employee or a private firm’s employee and based on the access you gained with your security clearance learned that the government was spying on American citizens, for example that the NSA was listening to phone calls of American citizens without warrants, would you blow the whistle on this classified program?

    What if you knew that this program generated leads for valid crimes? I imagine a government with total information awareness would get some bad guys using it.

    I believe they should ask everyone who gets a security clearance this question, from now on.

    Dustin (cc9922)

  70. There is an exception to the FISA process that if it is deemed an emergency situation, they can intercept BUT they still need approval from Justice to do that and they still need to go through the process of getting the warrant AFTER the fact.

    They can’t just willy-nilly listen in on whatever they choose. They would still need to get approval from someone at FBI.

    The problem with this story (and the one at wired) is that there are fragments of truth in it but not the whole picture.

    Example scenario:

    Known terrorist in Pakistan or Yemen or whereever suddenly places a call to a US number that is not on anyone’s “watch list” and not covered by any current FISA warrants. Is this a terrorist operation getting ready to happen? Someone orders the collection system to start saving the content to storage while someone phones up FBI, explains the situation, could be an imminent threat out of the blue, we don’t know. FBI says “OK”.

    Now someone checks out the content. Finds out it isn’t an imminent threat but they want to add it to their current FISA watch list so it is sent to the FISA court for a FISA order.

    There’s a pretty good interview with former Sen. Kyl who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee for several years on tonight’s Larry Kudlow show on this subject.

    You can stream it from here:

    http://www.wabcradio.com/page.php?page_id=552

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  71. If by “that” you mean the stuff he’s leaking to China about China then, yeah, he should have kept his word and kept that a secret. I would have most definitely kept “that” a secret.

    Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 11:43 pm

    Naw. Forgetting the Chinese part. If you had the goods that the NSA was snooping on every phone call, every computer transaction in America reading emails, sifting through people’s computers, possibly even planting fabricated evidence on their political enemies electronics, would you bust them on it?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  72. “I blame Obama and the politicians who support him. No matter who you voted for, we all have a right to expect government leaders to obey the Constitution that each one of them swore an oath to support and defend. Listening to our conversations and capturing the details of every call, email and personal transaction — all apparently without a warrant — is not something we should have expected, let alone our fault.”

    Well then that’s a failure of imagination on your part, no offense intended.

    It’s completely what I anticipated and said five years ago. That’s why I took months off, neglecting my relationship, in an effort to do what little I could to defeat him, in vain, even electing John friggin’ McCain if that’s what it took.

    I don’t think we’ve seen the worst of Obama, by the way, especially when his back is cornered.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  73. I mixed metaphors, but you get what I mean.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  74. To believe Snowden was (is) lying or making things up, you would have to believe the obama administration and/or the lsm who report whatever spin obama wants.

    Just the fact that I know nothing at all about Snowden gives him more credibility.

    Jim (2976d8)

  75. Ministry of Love
    don’t get it, America?
    hit us cuz They care

    Colonel Haiku (c7fc59)

  76. fundamental trans
    President Scandalooza
    better start chooming

    Colonel Haiku (c7fc59)

  77. teh Three Card Monte
    don’t fall for last year’s caper
    lies that liars tell

    Colonel Haiku (c7fc59)

  78. there isn’t a wall that’s long enuf
    to back these mothers against

    Colonel Haiku (c7fc59)

  79. 57.I blame Obama and the politicians who support him. No matter who you voted for, we all have a right to expect government leaders to obey the Constitution that each one of them swore an oath to support and defend. Listening to our conversations and capturing the details of every call, email and personal transaction — all apparently without a warrant — is not something we should have expected, let alone our fault.

    Kevin Drum disagrees:

    ◾What’s more, part of my objection to the program in 2005 was that it involved warrantless surveillance. Like it or not, that’s changed. Congress essentially gave its blessing to the program in 2008 and, as Glenn Greenwald confirmed last week, it’s now done under the aegis of warrants lawfully issued to telcos (for the phone record program) and tech companies (for the PRISM program).
    ◾On a personal note, I’ll confess that it’s hard to sustain a feeling of outrage over this. We had a huge fight about all this stuff five years ago and we lost. Now everyone is supposedly shocked, shocked that NSA is hoovering up huge amounts of private data. Well, of course they are. We lost.

    James B. Shearer (fc4608)

  80. One of the most basic problem we have in this Country on many issues of Constitutionality is the fact it has been slowly shaved down with exceptions by Legal Challenges from both the Government and Special Interest Groups. This is how “it is legal” can be applied to thing far and wide from Obamacare to the NSA Spying on its Citizens. Government Workers thinks it is OK to lie to the Congress and they think not two seconds about imposing their politics to hurt political adversaries.

    We stand no chance of solving this problem unless the Voters express their wishes to get back to where we started, vacate precedent, re-read the damn document, and frankly (if need be) remove by force those opposed to it.

    Our Social Contract is broken. Time to be fixed. And the Lawyers will never in a million years get this done. They are vested in the bureaucracy that keeps them employed and serves their egos on how important the law is regardless of how unconstitutional it really is.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  81. What a jackalope, Kevin Drum is, when the program was much more limited, he screamed like a banshee.

    narciso (3fec35)

  82. The Lament of Edward Snowden

    There is a place in China
    That they call Hong Kong
    And it’s been the refuge of many a spy
    And the NSA knows I’m one.

    My girlfriend was a hottie
    She really liked to rap
    And she put up a dancing pole
    To increase her thigh gap.

    Now the only thing a spy needs
    Is a monitor and a mouse
    And he can see all that you do
    Inside your very own house.

    I’ve got one foot on the tarmac
    The other one on the plane
    I think I’ll be in Vanity Fair
    Alongside Valerie Plame.

    nk (875f57)

  83. Snowden should be pardoned by the next administration, stripped of any possibility of ever holding a security clearance again, and given a medal.

    THIS

    phunctor (109ec6)

  84. I wasn’t aware that anyone was canonizing Snowden..

    Icy (eaa5ae)

  85. The AP on The Most Transparent Administration Ever.
    It’s a good article, with more than a little snark directed at the WH.

    Icy (eaa5ae)

  86. Obama’s hypocrisy is transparent … to those willing to admit it.

    nk (875f57)

  87. What we know is disturbing enough;

    Embedded in your link is this text from Nationalreview.com, written by Gerald Walpin, who, per the byline, was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006 as inspector general of the Corporation For National and Community Service, and fired by President Obama in June 2009.

    Among all the unanswered questions about the IRS’s illegal targeting of conservative organizations, one is most crucial: Who ordered this extreme scrutiny? Amazingly, IRS inspector general J. Russell George, responsible for the investigation asking those questions about the IRS, has testified that he did not obtain that information.

    Details of that testimony are interesting. Representative Tom Graves (R., Ga.) asked, “Have you asked the individuals who ordered them to use this extra scrutiny to punish, or penalize, or postpone, or deny?” George turns around to confer with his assistant. Just the fact that the inspector general had to confer to know the answer to this crucial question is amazing. George’s assistant says something to him that is not recorded, but one can see the assistant shaking his head back and forth. Then George responds publicly to the question, saying, “During our audit, Congressman, we did pose that question and no one would acknowledge who, if anyone, provided that direction.”

    But I learned, through being fired by the Obama administration, that performing one’s responsibilities as one should, and potentially adversely affecting the administration’s image, is not the way to keep one’s job. (Fortunately, I was not dependent on my federal IG salary.)

    That reality was made apparent to me — and, through what happened to me, to all IGs — when I supported my staff of longtime dedicated civil servants, who had recommended taking action against one Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player who had misused, for personal purposes, about $750,000 of an AmeriCorps grant intended for underprivileged young people. What I did not then know was that he was a friend and supporter of President Obama — a fact that caused the proverbial you-know-what to hit the fan.

    Without detailing all that happened, the bottom line was that I started to receive pressure to drop the case against Mr. Johnson. When I declined to repudiate my staff’s work, the guillotine fell: I was summarily telephoned that if I did not resign in one hour, I would be fired. And I was, along with my special assistant, John Park. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote of my firing: “The evidence suggests that [President Obama’s] White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.”

    Similar questions have been raised about other IGs who somehow have been discarded. Amtrak IG Fred Weiderhold, Treasury special IG Neil Barofsky, and International Trade Commission IG Judith Gwynn all left their positions after disputes that weren’t appreciated by the administration, giving more reason for others to go easy with the administration.

    When the context of all these scandals are placed against the backdrop of the corrupt, extremist, “goddamn America” nature of the current president, bit players like Edward Snowden start to fade in importance.

    Keep in mind that variations — which are flipped up or down — of the way Kevin Johnson was treated apparently are being played out throughout the government. People are being either singled out with a pat on the head (eg, Nidal Hasan, Boston bombers, or pals of Obama) or being singled out with a slap on the face (eg, conservatives applying for non-profit status, etc).

    cbsnews.com, November 2010: Following is Mr. Obama’s “enemies” quote from the Univision interview:

    “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election — then I think it’s going to be harder. And that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd.”

    Here is what Boehner said about Mr. Obama’s use of the word “enemies” in prepared remarks for a speech Monday night.

    “…When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators — enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country. Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans — fellow citizens.”

    theulstermanreport.com, November 1, 2012: A rep from [White House Senior Adviser Valerie] Jarrett office was in today. She gave us a finish line pep talk and then afterwards, heard her saying how Jarrett is very excited about a 2nd term agenda and a big part of that agenda is to punish everyone who opposed them during the first term and the campaign.

    The part that really stuck out to me was when I overheard the rep say that Jarrett told them, “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”

    America’s chickens are coming home to roost. And you — a majority of the US electorate last year — opened the door to that.

    Mark (fcba4f)

  88. with hope that those naive lefty serfs will see thru new eyes… el General Manuel Obama, presidente for life until impeachment… characterizing him as a malevolent Machiavellian does not quite capture it.

    Colonel Haiku (cd2f41)

  89. April, 2010 – The Library of Congress announced that it will begin archiving “for posterity” all public tweets.

    May, 2012 – a DHS manual is publicly released after a FOIA lawsuit. http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/Analyst-Desktop-Binder-REDACTED.pdf (The list starts on page 20)

    The key word list contains some 340 words that DHS searches for in the content of all social media and blogs. Words include:
    San Diego, border, Southwest, CIA, immigration, Taliban, al Qaeda, consulate, cops, law enforcement, subway, airport, delay, power, smart, hazardous, response, deaths, illegal immigrants and pork .

    The list is inclusive enough to flag a large number of messages and entries for further review for the use of commonly used terms. DHS should have just made it easy for themselves with a two word listed of targeted words: “the” & “and”.

    This from the agency that classifies TEA Party members and vets as likely domestic terrorists.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  90. I’m with Drum. WE voted for this. WE re-elected BHO.

    Now, WE reap. Deal.

    How many decades of leniency and dumbing down have WE all witnessed AND let go?

    It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up, remember? Barry does. He’ll remain.

    You ready to take down the Federal Reserve? The Rule of Man? It’s gonna cost. Dearly.

    Ed from SFV (6382f3)

  91. James B Shearer,

    That “huge battle” Drum says we “lost” in 2005 authorized warrantless surveillance of foreign telephone calls and emails conducted by suspected terrorists. If you and Drum think that opened the door to the NSA conducting warrantless surveillance of all telephone calls and emails, you have a very fluid definition of opening the door.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  92. Yes, Former Conservative, you’re brilliant. That seems to be the point of every comment you leave, right?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  93. Excellent comment, bobathome #66.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  94. Oops! Forgot to mention that the Postal Service scans the front and back of every piece of mail it processes and retains the images in an indexed database. This capability was used in May to track down the source of the ricin letters sent to government officials.

    To summarize, the federal government now knows:
    – who you send mail to
    – what you buy from what stores when using a credit card
    – who you call/who calls you, the date, time of day and duration of the call; and your location during the call
    – the content of you telephone calls
    – the content of your blog or social media comments
    – what photos and video you post on-line
    – what you publicly tweet

    Despite earlier assurances by the President, Congess, and the DNI that a court order is required to dive into content, we now know that is wrong. A low level analyst is empowered merely by his role to pick and choose which communications to inspect in their entirety.

    The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution reads:
    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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.”

    Parse this one sentence all you like and the result is always the same – PRISM and telephone call collection is unconstitutional.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  95. #98 in_awe,

    The only people who can’t read that sentence are lawyers and people making money breaking the Constitution.

    And that holds for many many many many other parts for Constitution.

    We need to literally start all over. Vacate all precedent and let the People challenge as many laws based on the text written not the insane “lawyer creep” and goobleygook of the last 100 years of court activism.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  96. 1. As Icy points out, what Snowden has revealed is the issue, not Snowden.

    Mr. Icy please to consider that Edward and his courage matter immensely. He can serve as an inspiration to others to step forward and halt the ascendance of fascism in America.

    Or he can serve as a warning to those who might follow his example.

    The Boehnerfascist right moved quick quick quick as a bunny to smear Edward to smear him bad to where his own mama wouldn’t recognize him.

    And that is a terrifying thing.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  97. Former Conservative is cool beans DRJ I don’t for reals believe he’s a former conservative though.

    I think he just been alienated by boehnerfascist whores like Meghan’s coward daddy and princess lindsey and porky porky and smarmy smarmy rubio el cubano mas authentico.

    We should all get together and have spare ribs before the finale.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  98. you can pick either regular sauce or extra spicy or you don’t have to have any sauce at all

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  99. 72. If by “that” you mean the stuff he’s leaking to China about China then, yeah, he should have kept his word and kept that a secret. I would have most definitely kept “that” a secret.

    Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 11:43 pm

    Naw. Forgetting the Chinese part. If you had the goods that the NSA was snooping on every phone call, every computer transaction in America reading emails, sifting through people’s computers, possibly even planting fabricated evidence on their political enemies electronics, would you bust them on it?

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2013 @ 12:46 am

    Naw, I’m not forgetting the Chinese part. That’s what you have to do to say something like this about Snowden.

    43. Whatshisname is still in the running for hero in that case.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/15/2013 @ 7:51 pm

    Obviously you have to forget the Chinese part if you’re going to insist he’s in the running for hero, but Snowden took himself out to the running for hero because of the Chinese part. How much of the dude’s history are you willing to ignore to fabricate your own hero?

    As far as what I’d do, look at my comment #47 for what I consider an example. It isn’t just what you blow the whistle on; how you do it counts. Running off to China with a treasure trove of secrets isn’t how you do it.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  100. 95

    That “huge battle” Drum says we “lost” in 2005 …

    Five years ago would be 2008 .

    James B. Shearer (fc4608)

  101. chinesers are a useful check on american hijamiminy is what NPR says Mr. 57 are you saying NPR is wrong?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  102. NPR? The producers of shows like “Some Things Considered?” Yeah it’s wrong. It’s a bastion of lefty group-think.

    You want to know why we have bases in places like Singapore, Japan, and the Philippines want us back? Because the people who have to live with the chinesers see things entirely the other way around. We’re a useful check on their hijamiminy.

    See, we’re not the ones claiming the the Spratlys, the Paracels, and the Senkaku Islands as our territory and practically the entire South China Sea and East China Sea as our territorial waters. The chinesers are.

    NPR like Snowden are part of the same blame America first, we are citizens of the world crowd. The countries who want us around have to live in reality, though.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  103. it doesn’t make sense then for us to spend so many tax monies on NPR Mr. 57

    a lot of this needs a rethink

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  104. Truth be told, what they’ve done is created for themselves a non-paranoid, dedicated resistance. While in times past it was only the philosophical Reactionaries that carried the banner of Dissent, now, it will become a national movement.

    Remember; do not operate like the WUG. We will not get cushy jobs if we do such activities and get thrown in jail.

    When the time comes, we will make our move. Until then, remember the adage:

    “In times of prosperity, prepare for adversity.”

    RiverC (73ca41)

  105. @ Steve
    I’m not trying to bust your balls, but there you go doing the tap dance around the question.

    (You running for office or something?)

    Edward told the Chinese that Obama’s NSA has hacked into their private citizens computers – which is a crime committed by Obama. Edward revealed the crime.
    What Edward did in that matter is one part self preservation (he had to have something to offer in order to secure his own personal safety FROM OBAMA, and induce the Chinese to enlist in that cause), and nine parts doing the right thing, revealing the criminality of the Bama admin.

    It wasn’t revealing state secrets. More like revealing Obama’s personal secrets. It’s analog to a former employee of Hewlett Packard telling Samsung that HP installed a mole in their organization.

    So the Chinese thing is a wash. It’s incidental contact necessary for Eddy’s survival.

    But the big question, which you carefully step away from like it were a turd, would you have bustd the Obama domestic spying program knowing that it would mean a drastic change in your lifestyle, knowing that it would make you a fugitive from your own country, knowing that you would never be able to return to your happy home most likely ever again?

    I think I have my answer already.

    ED SNOWDEN jumped on a grenade saving the company, and you sir are berating him for stepping out of formation.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  106. UPDATE: Meanwhile, our hero Snowden continues to provide classified information about our alleged efforts against the Chinese – to the Chinese!

    Perhaps he simply sees them as a more efficient, and less bankrupt, copy of our own government. If a NY Times columnist can hold that opinion – Friedman – why not Snowden?

    Mike Giles (54b9d0)

  107. NPR like Snowden are part of the same blame America first, we are citizens of the world crowd.

    And everything has become so topsy-turvy that while I agree with you, I also sympathize with happyfeet and even NPR. But that’s predicated on the latter — latte liberals — finally becoming repulsed at the thought of giving tongue baths to Obama.

    We live in strange, disconcerting times.

    Until then, remember the adage:

    I still can’t get over the fact that this nation — that its electorate in its infinite wisdom — put into the White House a person who embraced (or, present tense, embraces) the philosophy of “Goddamn America.” To me, that’s analogous to putting a pedophile in charge of the Boy Scouts or an elementary school.

    Mark (fcba4f)

  108. Steve57,

    I don’t want to divert you from your conversation with papertiger, so please just file this comment away for a future discussion if you have time.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Snowden is a traitor and, as Dick Cheney suggested today, he may even be Chinese spy. Hopefully most of us would agree there is no good excuse for actions designed to betray one’s country, instead of acting as a whistleblower concerned about the public interest.

    Nevertheless, if the information Snowden released is true, isn’t there still a benefit to the American public that comes from learning the government is involved in such a broad breach of our civil liberties?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  109. Comment by in_awe (7c859a) — 6/16/2013 @ 10:45 am

    In the contrary, the ricin case postal marks did not serve as the first or even crucial information leading to the perpetrator. The perpetrator served that function herself.

    It only served after the fact of her contacting authorities, to discredit her already squirrely trail and confirm the alibi of her target (her estranged husband.)

    SarahW (b0e533)

  110. FWIW, maybe Snowden is a traitor and a Chinese spy but I wonder if he is attracted to the Chinese similar to the way Obama admires China’s way of doing business.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  111. In my opinion, thencasevwould have been solved without any access to the photographed envelopes. It facilitated resolution, but wasn’t necessary.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  112. So far, I haven’t seen any revelations from Snowden that haven’t been in the public domain for years. His great sin was going to Hong Kong and getting lots of publicity for revealing things we already know, like the Obama Administration is saying one thing and doing another.

    Ed Snowden shined a spotlight on NSA’s data collection efforts that have been common knowledge for at least 10 years. His trip to China forced MSM to cover inconvenient facts they’ve helped ignore and deny.

    The real question, the unanswered question, is why didn’t all those fancy NSA computers catch the Boston Bombers? Hell, the Russians even pointed the finger at them and still our security and intelligence services couldn’t put 2 and 2 together. Were they brain dead, were they busy keeping track of TEA Party patriots, or learning to line dance, or were they instructed to stand down?

    ropelight (4f78fb)

  113. The government runs roughshod over citizen’s enumerated Rights and lies about it.

    Richard Ramirez dies in prison while the federal and state courts spend 30 years evaluating his right to a fair trial.

    Something seems off.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  114. @ Comment by ropelight (4f78fb) — 6/16/2013 @ 12:32 pm

    I got $20 says it was instructed to stand down.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  115. Dustin (@70):

    The reason they don’t ask hypotheticals like that is that a truthful answer would always be: “It depends.”

    Suppose in a TS intverview they asked if you would keep quiet if you found out the government was secretly sending bothersome people to gulags. What answer would you give? What answer would you want them to want you to give?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  116. You have to parse pretty carefully what is being said by various people. They have bits and pieces of truth but aren’t the whole truth.

    Sure, NSA *CAN* intercept someone’s communications without a warrant. But only in what is deemed to be an “emergency” case and even then not without notifying the Justice Department. Also, if you read what others have said such as former director General Hayden, when someone with the capability to perform such an intercept does so, an audit trail is started and their superiors AND an internal security group are notified of it.

    Notice that Snowden said he *COULD* read/listen to someone’s stuff. He didn’t say he DID. Because if he did, a lot of people would know about it. That is done on purpose so one rogue individual can not do stuff they aren’t supposed to do without people knowing about it. People HAVE been caught doing this and they have been fired for it, according to General Hayden.

    The FISA process includes an exception for “emergency” situations. In that case there can be an intercept when it is deemed that there might not be time to go through the warrant process, such as something extremely interesting happening *right now* that might not happen again. But it STILL needs to go through the process after the fact.

    What is happening here are several things coming together at the same time. We have a lot of urban legends that have built up over time about NSA and what it does and is capable of doing. At the same time we have people who are upset at government abuse both at IRS and other agencies and we see a Department of Justice being run by what appears to be a corrupt partisan. Add to that a desire by Democrats to shift focus away from the IRS and Benghazi scandals knowing that NSA is not going to be able to defend itself in public, and you have a sort of perfect storm.

    Does NSA have connections directly into the US telephone system? Probably. It would make sense. If they had to wait for an individual connection to be made every time there was one person doing something suspicious and tear it down afterwards, they could never do their job. These things are fleeting. Maybe a single call that transmits some information that is a signal of some sort. They have to be ready to intercept it in real time. You can’t do that without the infrastructure in place.

    Do I believe NSA is constantly recording everything everyone is saying all the time? Nope. NSA has a total of roughly 40,000 employees. There are 300 million Americans making phone calls on any given day. Internet traffic is huge these days and most of it is repeated content. How many copies of the NBA playoffs or some spam blast do you need?

    More importantly NSA is part of the Department of Defense and their job is to protect against foreign threats to the US. Most of their effort is focused at the rest of the world. They are not a law enforcement agency and they are not primarily focused on domestic threats, that is FBI’s job. NSA might have a capability of intercepting domestic communications but can only do so with the approval or direction of the Department of Justice.

    As for the metadata, there was a good point in that Kudlow piece. If you are looking for a needle in a haystack, you first need the haystack. If we can’t winnow down likely targets, that results in HAVING to scan everything to try to find the bad actors. The metadata mining actually REDUCES the amount of snooping that needs to be done. Even that was ordered by FBI, not done by NSA by itself.

    I am more worried about abuse by FBI than I am by NSA.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  117. 112. Nevertheless, if the information Snowden released is true, isn’t there still a benefit to the American public that comes from learning the government is involved in such a broad breach of our civil liberties?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/16/2013 @ 12:22 pm

    Yes, there is. And I’ve said several times that Snowden had performed a service to his country. But that service was wiped out when he went to China and betrayed his country.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  118. Suppose in a TS intverview they asked if you would keep quiet if you found out the government was secretly sending bothersome people to gulags. What answer would you give? What answer would you want them to want you to give?

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/16/2013

    I’m a lot more simple minded about such matters than a lot of other smart folks are, and to me these are obvious questions.

    No, of course I wouldn’t keep that quiet. And of course that is the only acceptable answer. Anyone who can’t answer the question clearly that way… I wish they didn’t have access to secrets. If everyone knew that the people with the access to secrets had this sense about civil rights, I don’t think conspiracies to erode our privacy or rights would be hatched so readily.

    Dustin (303dca)

  119. Snowden is misleading people, it’s not 100% clear whether deliberately.

    The big secret he is forcing out, or trying to force out is how limited the government’s inspection of the records is.

    Now the NSA said that only 300 requests were made.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589524-38/nsa-probed-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-in-2012-report/

    This is the sort of thing that can give terrorists confidence that they won’t be found out.

    If all the parameters become known it can be very bad. They might not underestimate either and what’s important is that teerrorists grouops either guess low (which results in discovereed plots) or guess high (which results in plots never attempted or done badly or slow)

    Getting things just right is what gives you a Boston marathon bombing. (Tamerlan Tsarnaev and/or his trainers guessed correctly we were not eavesdropping on anything going on in Russian territory)

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  120. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 6/15/2013 @ 6:12 pm

    In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.”

    It could be that whenever an analysts makes a rfequest, based on something be related to foreign terrorists groups, it gets rubber stamped by a judge. That’s enough for the judge.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  121. It is in the interest of the Democrats to pump this story, make it huge, get people all scared, then have an investigation that reveals no wrongdoing. Then when people start wanting to dig into the IRS, EPA, or State Department they hold forth with “hey, remember what happened when you got all hyped up about NSA?”. So I think they have a pretty good idea that no wrongdoing will be found here so they are going to pump up the fear factor at first, then they will dig into it and find that nobody did anything wrong. Then they will try to use that result to paint the rest of their chicanery as being no big deal where we KNOW wrongdoing was actually done (to 80,000 farmers, for example).

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  122. Comment by Mark (fcba4f) — 6/16/2013 @

    electorate in its infinite wisdom — put into the White House a person who embraced (or, present tense, embraces) the philosophy of “Goddamn America.” ?

    No, he didn’t. That was Jeremiah Wright, and not Jeremiah Wright would agree with himself. (that was just rhetoric)

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  123. 109. @ Steve
    I’m not trying to bust your balls, but there you go doing the tap dance around the question.

    (You running for office or something?)

    Edward told the Chinese that Obama’s NSA has hacked into their private citizens computers – which is a crime committed by Obama. Edward revealed the crime.
    What Edward did in that matter is one part self preservation (he had to have something to offer in order to secure his own personal safety FROM OBAMA, and induce the Chinese to enlist in that cause), and nine parts doing the right thing, revealing the criminality of the Bama admin.

    It wasn’t revealing state secrets. More like revealing Obama’s personal secrets. It’s analog to a former employee of Hewlett Packard telling Samsung that HP installed a mole in their organization.

    So the Chinese thing is a wash. It’s incidental contact necessary for Eddy’s survival.

    But the big question, which you carefully step away from like it were a turd, would you have bustd the Obama domestic spying program knowing that it would mean a drastic change in your lifestyle, knowing that it would make you a fugitive from your own country, knowing that you would never be able to return to your happy home most likely ever again?

    I think I have my answer already.

    ED SNOWDEN jumped on a grenade saving the company, and you sir are berating him for stepping out of formation.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2013 @ 12:10 pm

    I haven’t danced around anything. I would have done like Bill Binney and resigned and gone public. I would have done that as a last resort after a) getting a lawyer b) going to the IG (maybe, it depends on which outfit I was working for) and c) going to a Congressman I knew to be a critic of this type of domestic spying like Wyden, Udall, or Paul.

    Probably Rand Paul because he’s not on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senators are cleared for this level of Intelligence but aren’t informed of it unless they’re on the right committee. The Senators and Representatives can go to a SCIF and read through volumes and volumes of highly technical information on their own if they like, but it would be almost impossible for them to grasp the true nature of program without staffers dedicated to the task. And only Congressmen assigned to the Intelligence Committees have staffers cleared for information on this program. It would be more than a full time job for a Senator or Representative to get up to speed on this program on their own and they simply wouldn’t have the time given their other committee assignments.

    I would have chosen Paul because I would have concluded that people on the Intelligence Committee might be in on it since I wouldn’t have anyway of knowing how detailed NSA would have been describing the program. And after watching Intelligence Committee member DiFi lie on the Senate floor to con her fellow Senators to approve the bill reauthorizing the bill without debate I’d have concluded that only by going to an outsider could I get a fair hearing.

    And no spying on Chinese computers, even private citizens, in China isn’t a crime. The 4th Amendment doesn’t apply abroad against foreign nationals. That’s why NSA doesn’t need a FISA warrant to do so; the courts have never, ever thought that was necessary. That is legitimate espionage.

    And by the way, do you know the difference between targeting individual IP addresses and targeting individuals? Because many if not most of the IP addresses they targeted don’t belong to individuals but the Chinese government. Because according to news reports the IP addresses belong government officials, government institutes, and the students that do the hacking from those institutes.

    The bottom line is that Snowden didn’t jump on a grenade. He threw one back in through the door as he was leaving.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  124. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/16/2013 @ 12:22 pm

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Snowden is a traitor and, as Dick Cheney suggested today, he may even be Chinese spy. Hopefully most of us would agree there is no good excuse for actions designed to betray one’s country, instead of acting as a whistleblower concerned about the public interest.

    Nevertheless, if the information Snowden released is true, isn’t there still a benefit to the American public that comes from learning the government is involved in such a broad breach of our civil liberties?

    As the panel said on Fox News Sunday this actually isn’t a secret. It was all covered in 2006 and 2008. Congress made it unquestionably legal in 2008. Of course it is still news to many people.

    What Snowden is doing is misleading people into thinking actual scrutiny is more than what it is.

    So what you get is the government explaining exactly what it is doing, a subject of vital interest to enemies of the United States.

    What Snowden wants is for the exact parameters to be made public, and/or for even less to be done. It seems like he is deliberatly lying abouyt some things, although mayeb that isn’t absolutely clear yet.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  125. papertiger, I referred you to post #47 because I didn’t want to write a wall-o-text like I just did.

    So I apologize to everyone else because I had to spell it out.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  126. Yes, Former Conservative, you’re brilliant. That seems to be the point of every comment you leave, right?

    William Ayers’ protege acting tyrannically was not hard to predict though. It took bias not to see it — a (emotional if not cognitive) bias toward “American exceptionism” and similar notions. Tyranny can happen in America as elsewhere. I would argue it is happening right now. The growth of technology makes this vastly more likely, and the electorate, including conservatives, are not fit to stand up to it.

    However, whatever harm Snowden has done in this way or that, he’s struck a blow to at least slow down the growth of that tyranny.

    By the way, Peggy Noonan nailed it with her recent article and many of the comments above touched on her theme whether they read it or not. The idea these things just don’t happen in America is falling by the wayside for many.

    America elected a man who took pains to hide his history whose pastor was an America-hater and whose political mentor and ghost writer was a (intellectually brilliant) domestic terrorist whose organisation bombed the Pentagon and whose wife was complicit in the killing of two Chicago police officers. What precisely did you think would happen under his leadership, if not this? And do you expect him to leave office without a peep in 2017?

    Even if he does, you can expect his people to be in place with their thumb on the scales for who is in office next.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  127. Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/16/2013 @ 1:25 pm

    I would have done that as a last resort after a) getting a lawyer b) going to the IG (maybe, it depends on which outfit I was working for) and c) going to a Congressman I knew to be a critic of this type of domestic spying like Wyden, Udall, or Paul.

    That’s one of the thinbgs Daniel Ellsberg (or a friend) did with the Pentagon Papers.

    Senator Mike Gravel read them on the Senate floor.

    There’s a clause in the Constitution that says a member of Congress shall not be questioned in any other place for anything he says on the floor of Congress (and this has been extended to committees too)

    A House member has limited time but a Senator can just talk.

    Now if the leadership and the membership did not support him or was enough agaiunst him he could suffer penalties.

    Probably Rand Paul because he’s not on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    Very logical, but Snowden would have to be awaqre of this loophole in secrecy (and also actually not be interested in helping adversaries of the United States)

    But actually rand Paul isn’t very honest.

    Senators are cleared for this level of Intelligence but aren’t informed of it unless they’re on the right committee.

    So he wouldn’t be vuiolatinmg classification rules either.

    You know what happened now. they broefed every member of Congress so all would be bound by secrecy agreements – not legally exactly but by rules of Congress.

    I would have chosen Paul because I would have concluded that people on the Intelligence Committee might be in on it

    No, you want somebody more honest. Feingold when he was there, or Bernard Sanders.

    But Snowden would have to be aware of the law. A lawyer could tell him, maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  128. I’ve said several times that Snowden had performed a service to his country. But that service was wiped out when he went to China and betrayed his country.

    And what about the disservice to the country of the Obama administration, which prompted Snowden in the first place?
    Obama with the collusion of such notables as Darth Vadar , (um sorry) Dick Cheney, violated what is supposed to be the highest law of the land.

    Both of those guys took an oath to uphold the constitution.
    What’s their penalty for violating that oath and the people’s trust?

    Seems to me that it should be something more severe than being termed out of office.

    I want deterence aimed straight at feckless politicians. Involving prison and fines.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  129. And no spying on Chinese computers, even private citizens, in China isn’t a crime. The 4th Amendment doesn’t apply abroad against foreign nationals. That’s why NSA doesn’t need a FISA warrant to do so; the courts have never, ever thought that was necessary. That is legitimate espionage.

    And could Snowden really be that ignorant about the situation in China, with many things not being openly military. It could be his Chinese handlers told him to emphasize none of the computers were military , like as if the only spying of genuine intrest to the United States was somethinbg military. And as if openly military computers wouldn’t eb more protected.

    And by the way, do you know the difference between targeting individual IP addresses and targeting individuals? Because many if not most of the IP addresses they targeted don’t belong to individuals but the Chinese government. Because according to news reports the IP addresses belong government officials, government institutes, and the students that do the hacking from those institutes.

    Snoden only said not military.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  130. My apology for the length of this comment, but I’m getting very worried.

    Our government relies on checks and balances between courts, legislators and executive branch and a questioning press. Most of all, it relies on basic honesty of Americans and our respect for the rule of law. Under Obama, all of that has changed.

    The first shoe to drop was the New Black Panther case. When Holder decided not to prosecute a blatant act of voter intimidation broadcast on a TV, the Obama Administration told us all they were going to enforce the law selectively. Whites have no protection. The media said nothing.

    When ObamaCare was being tested in court, at one point the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional. Until the court stayed the ruling, the program should have stopped. Obama continued “apace.” The media said nothing.

    After the Gulf oil spill, Department of the Interior shut down offshore drilling. Later, oil companies sued and won, but Obama ignore the federal court ruling. The media said nothing.

    After refusing to enforce the border, Arizona tried to do it but the Justice Department sued. The media said nothing.

    Obama tried to get Cap & Trade passed, but the democrat congress refused. Obama directed it through executive order and EPA. The media said nothing.

    In Operation Fast & Furious the ATF was video recording straw buyers, some of whom were known felons, making multiple illegal purchases of rifles and pistols. The Obama administration made no attempt to interdict this illegal flow to Mexico. Despite whistle blowers and hundreds of Mexican deaths, the media said nothing. In Congressman Issa’s investigation, Holder lied under oath, stonewalled and the media said nothing.

    In Yemen, Obama authorized the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al Alaki, without due process. Three weeks later he had his son killed. The media said nothing.

    Before the election, when ObamaCare funds to subsidize seniors’ prescription drugs ran out, they transferred funds from a line not authorized for that purpose. The media said nothing.

    During the election, there were massive irregularities in votes in Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida. At the same time, 100,000 fewer military members could not vote because their ballots were not delivered on time. The media said nothing.

    We had Benghazi, the IRS, AP phone records, Sibelius lobbying companies she regulates, PRISM and NSA, The media said nothing.

    In the case of James Rosen, Holder lied to a federal judge to tap Fox News phones. When they were caught, their answer was that if they hadn’t lied, the warrants would not have been approved. Oh and again, Holder lied to congress under oath. The media said nothing.

    Next year we may not be living through Orwell’s 1984. We may be living through Germany’s 1934.

    Arch (0baa7b)

  131. Arch, it’s kinda hard to sum up all this administration’s scandals without going a little long.

    That it took this many to get any real media attention shows how bad the bias disease is.

    Dustin (303dca)

  132. Working on my father in laws roof today a plane pulling flew over with a banner that said “Gomez is Romney lite”. Either Markey is worried or the few conservatives in Ma. were flipping the republicans in name only the finger.

    mg (31009b)

  133. delete pulling.

    mg (31009b)

  134. With Snowden he took an oath to defend the constitution and follow lawful orders when he enlisted in the military. Then later on he took an oath to keep NSA secrets.

    But now those NSA secrets are shown to be unlawful.

    When you balance the two out, the oath to defend the constitution outweighs the oath to keep NSA’s clandestine illegal activities quiet.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  135. No, he didn’t.

    Sammy, just try to remember that being surrounded by liberalism gone berserk — in the land of ultra-blue, nanny-state-Michael-Bloomberg-ized New York City (not to mention the religion of liberalism being sacred to an unhealthy percentage of the Jewish community) — does work against one’s common sense.

    BTW, I’m sure if a rightwing president attended a church for 20 years run by a preacher who proclaimed “blacks are the devil and should be sent back to Africa,” you’d say “no, the president didn’t subscribe to that—that was just rhetoric.”

    If all the parameters become known it can be very bad.

    Yea, parameters like the following…

    Politico.com, June 15, 2013: In a little-noticed exchange before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday, Mueller acknowledged that the Russian alert was not the first time the elder Tsarnaev brother crossed the FBI’s radar.

    “His name had come up in two other cases,” Mueller said in response to questions from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). “Those two other cases, the individuals had their cases closed. So, he was one or two person [sic] away.”

    When King asked Mueller if it was reasonable to say that the Russian letter “refocused” the FBI on Tsarnaev, Mueller replied, “Absolutely.”

    Former House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) said he believes the prior mentions of Tsarnaev in FBI files should have resulted in greater scrutiny of the Russian-born U.S. resident who allegedly went on to carry out the April 15, 2013 bombing that killed three and an ensuing crime spree that left a police officer dead.

    At Thursday’s hearing, Mueller defended that inquiry as thorough, even though it resulted in no further action. Mueller suggested that there simply wasn’t enough of a legal basis to do anything else at that juncture.

    Peter King said local police could have visited Tsarnaev’s mosque, for example, something he said FBI guidelines would not have permitted. “They never went to the mosque, never went to the imam….I just find it of some concern there were two references to [Tsarnaev] before and they still didn’t think it merited keeping the investigation open,” the New York Republican told POLITICO Friday.

    news.investors.com, June 12, 2013: Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

    Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

    We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

    Mark (fcba4f)

  136. The Senate lacked the votes to get the Toomey-Manchin gun background check bill out of committee. All the pro-Second Amendment people were applauding this “victory.” Not so fast!

    In light of what we know is happening under NSA and PRISM, the government may already have firearms registry. Every FBI background check is done over the phone or on the web. All that stuff, including content, has been recorded.

    Unfortunately, all my firearms were lost in a tragic canoe accident last January. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

    Arch (0baa7b)

  137. “…NPR like Snowden are part of the same blame America first, we are citizens of the world crowd…”
    Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/16/2013 @ 11:32 am

    Steve, we used to call those people “San Francisco Democrats”.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  138. So far, I haven’t seen any revelations from Snowden that haven’t been in the public domain for years. His great sin was going to Hong Kong and getting lots of publicity for revealing things we already know, like the Obama Administration is saying one thing and doing another.

    The problem, ropelight, is that while something may be in the public domain it doesn’t become “official” until someone with a clearance and access to the program confirms it. Until then it’s just RUMINT.

    There’s always something in the public domain. “The Puzzle Palace” supposedly exposed the NSA back in 1983. But if you had a clearance you couldn’t comment on the book if anyone asked you. You could read it and decide what parts were accurate and what was BS, but you couldn’t share that knowledge with anyone who wasn’t cleared.

    But what Snowden did was confirm the worst rumors. I don’t know how much of what he’s saying is true and what isn’t, which is why I think the FISA court order to Verizon is more damning. But world leaders have been forced to respond to the US because of this confirmation. Even if they knew already to some degree because of the counter-espionage capabilities of their own intelligence services, as long as it was unconfirmed they didn’t have to respond to the RUMINT in the public domain.

    First in Britain, next in Germany. Merkel is going to meet with Obama on the Imperial family’s world tour, and the top of her agenda now is she’s going to demand to know if the US has been spying on German citizens. She probably already knows the answer, but she has to respond now to her outraged public.

    Snowden has already caused the same type of damage that the NYT and WaPo caused when they revealed the details of the SWIFT program and overseas prisons. Countries are willing to work with us only if they believe their cooperation is going to be kept secret.

    So it’s one thing to argue about the veracity of Snowden’s information on PRISM, and whether the domestic spying program violates the Constitution. (I think it does.) But Snowden is going to have a lot of countries fleeing for the exits from legitimate programs because they don’t know what else he’s going to reveal.

    That’s why Snowden’s a traitor.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  139. 140. With Snowden he took an oath to defend the constitution and follow lawful orders when he enlisted in the military. Then later on he took an oath to keep NSA secrets.

    But now those NSA secrets are shown to be unlawful.

    When you balance the two out, the oath to defend the constitution outweighs the oath to keep NSA’s clandestine illegal activities quiet.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2013 @ 1:51 pm

    Going to China and revealing the details about lawful espionage that really does serve legitimate national security interests means he’s violated both oaths.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  140. As America slips into a tyranny, conservatives are worrying mainly about national security from external, far weaker nations.

    How typical. How sad. How completely part of the problem.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  141. Because it’s not always about Obama, however the damage that both he and Snowden, inflict will remain, and Greenwald who minimized Bin Laden, who
    excuses Hamas, isn’t on our side either.

    narciso (3fec35)

  142. It’s pathetic that Former Conservative can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Looky, looky at what else his hero Snowden has been up to.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit?CMP=twt_fd&CMP=SOCxx2I2

    American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.

    The details of the intercept were set out in a briefing prepared by the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s biggest surveillance and eavesdropping organisation, and shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

    The document, leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian, shows the agency believed it might have discovered “a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted”.

    …The new revelations underline the significance of RAF Menwith Hill and raise questions about its relationship to the British intelligence agencies, and who is responsible for overseeing it. The 560-acre site was leased to the Americans in 1954 and the NSA has had a large presence there since 1966.

    I thought Obama was badly undermining our relationship with Britain. Snowden is giving him a run for his money.

    And it looks like Snowden may be eyeing that offer of asylum Putin made a while back.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  143. Even assuming Snowden is a traitor, he still did more good than harm in pointing out the breadth and depth of domestic surveillance because without freedom, security is nothing.

    That the NSA would spy on Medvedev is not particularly surprising to anyone, least of all the Russians. (I’m sure it’ll put leftwing Brit journalists in a state though.)

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  144. Yes, but you don’t ‘talk about fight club’ maybe this is why Volodya didn’t dismiss an asylum claim,

    narciso (3fec35)

  145. Some of us have years of military and national security knowledge and experience. Some are obviously IT specialists. Some of us are attorneys, and some are lawyers who have extensive knowledge of constitutional and criminal law. Some of us just work and live here, but love our country very much and we observe things in the big, overall picture as mere citizens that trouble us very, very much. As someone in the latter group, I have a hard time believing that Edward divulged much, if anything, to the Chinese powers that be which they did not already know or already possess. However, Edward did divulge some important things to the American people– and I think even to many of the congressional “watchdogs” and some in the media– of which we were unaware. That helped to connect some very big dots for us. I am not sure how else the extent of this secret domestic snooping stuff would have ever come out. That is why I think papertiger’s question is a good one. I respect and understand their point, but do not share Dustin’s and Steve57’s confidence that Edward would have survived any attempt on his part to “bring it to people’s attention” while living inside this country and trying to go though standard whistleblower channels. I am only a layman, but I believe anybody who thinks that Edward (and anyone helping him) would not have been “stopped” before he could speak, is being quite naive.

    elissa (594c4d)

  146. Further to “American exceptionalism” (and Obama’s dishonesty), this video rant is great. There are some expletives, however.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  147. Hear, hear, elissa.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  148. If anyone thinks Snowden isn’t divulging lots of information the Chinese and the Russians didn’t know about our intelligence methods, and is clearly signalling he’s prepared to release more, then you need to reread this line from the Guardian article and try to grasp its significance.

    …the agency believed it might have discovered “a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted”.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  149. I understand the point, Steve57, I’m going to assume for the sake of this discussion that he’s giving away what he knows of current (will rapidly become dated) methods and sources. OK, while he wouldn’t be the first such turncoat, that hurts.

    But giving way to a police surveillance state? That’s losing the whole ball game.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  150. , I have a hard time believing that Edward divulged much, if anything, to the Chinese powers that be which they did not already know or already possess.

    El Oh El

    Elissa and Sammy, separated at birth?

    Dustin (303dca)

  151. 151. …I am only a layman, but I believe anybody who thinks that Edward (and anyone helping him) would not have been “stopped” before he could speak, is being quite naive.

    Comment by elissa (594c4d) — 6/16/2013 @ 2:52 pm

    Read this article and explain why the people mentioned in it have been blowing the whistle on NSA for years while remaining inside the US and haven’t been stopped.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=3

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  152. It should be noted that Poitras was in contact with both Binney last year, and Snowden this year, which isn’t surprising because their goal is the same,

    narciso (3fec35)

  153. Steve57, as far as I can see absolutely no one here is trying to disabuse you from your stated opinion or are suggesting it has no merit, saying that you are not fully entitled to it, or that you are not welcome and free to express it. Is there some reason that you have a problem with other people who may view the Snowdon situation differently and from a different angle or through a different lens than you do?

    elissa (594c4d)

  154. Sorry about linking to the last page of the article. It needs to be noted that the only one mentioned in the article that was ever charged with a crime was Thomas Drake. And they only charged him for mishandling classified documents. Not for what he was saying publicly, similar to William Binney.

    The government was forced to drop all 10 felony charges against Drake in 2011 because they were BS. Drake did have to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. But they didn’t stop Drake as he’s still talking, just like Binney is. So clearly Snowden could have followed their example. Working at NSA he had to know even though the feds were out to get Drake they couldn’t get him.

    Instead he took the easy route and ran to China and sold out his country.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  155. I cannot recommend this video more highly. It is from the same man as the last video I posted, but here he is calm and reflective.

    1984 vs. 2013: Why Privacy Matters

    On so many levels, it is just full of win. It gets into far more than the title suggests, and explores some of the deepest problems we face going forward.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  156. 159. …Is there some reason that you have a problem with other people who may view the Snowdon situation differently and from a different angle or through a different lens than you do?

    Comment by elissa (594c4d) — 6/16/2013 @ 3:23 pm

    Yes, elissa, there is a reason. Because other people are minimizing the very real damage Snowden is doing in order to pretend he’s just a noble whistleblower.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  157. Terrorism is neither random nor senseless, it is systemic and predictable. Al Qaeda’s goal is to destabilize our society by demonstrating conclusively that our government is incapable of protecting us from jihadi attack. Once confidence in the federal government is lost (or destroyed from within) the population will be ripe for reduction to dependency on the strong horse.

    Al Qaeda is not only willing to engage, they proactively seek out opportunities to kill us, they boldly identify the enemy, they attack soft targets, and they marvel at the impotence of our cowardly responses. Their warriors are willing to die fighting, our warriors aren’t allowed even to name the enemy, much less to kill them without written permission. Benghazi proved our warriors aren’t even allowed to help one another when under prolonged attack. (If anyone ever needed proof the Obama Administration isn’t on our side, the Stand Down Order removes all doubt.)

    Al Qaeda’s leaders are bold, ours duck their official responsibilities, close their eyes, and lie to cover their duplicity, all the while providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Consequently, Al Qaeda’s victories come so easily and so often it must be the will of Allah, or else the fix is in. Every day Barack Obama remains in office is another day the American people come closer to losing their Constitutional rights, and their freedom and independence.

    ropelight (4f78fb)

  158. Not true, Steve. I’m saying if he’s a full-blown traitor spilling his guts on everything he’s learned as a 29-year old contractor with high security clearance, this pales into insignificance compared to the magnitude of the unconstitutional mega-technological surveillance state he exposed to the people.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  159. The damage Snowden is doing trading national security information for asylum abroad is hardly insignificant. So that is minimizing the damage. And he isn’t the one who revealed the “mega-technological surveillance state.” People like Drake, Binney, Weibe, and Roark have been doing it for years.

    The right way. Binney, Weibe, and Roark filed an IG complaint before going public. Drake wasn’t took no part in filing the complaint, and no doubt seeing how the first three were harassed after they filed it no doubt realized it was futile. So he went public first.

    As I said previously I would have taken the intermediate step of going to a member of Congress. They can’t go after you for that; everyone in the executive branch has an absolute right to give information to Congress.

    The bottom line is those people had real courage, which Snowden has demonstrated he does not by fleeing to China. And the value of the details he’s exposing about PRISM as opposed to what the prior whistleblowers had already exposed remains to be seen.

    What really did he add to what we already knew from the previous whistleblowers years ago? Like this from 2011.

    Binney expressed terrible remorse over the way some of his algorithms were used after 9/11. ThinThread, the “little program” that he invented to track enemies outside the U.S., “got twisted,” and was used for both foreign and domestic spying: “I should apologize to the American people. It’s violated everyone’s rights. It can be used to eavesdrop on the whole world.

    …As Binney imagined it, ThinThread would correlate data from financial transactions, travel records, Web searches, G.P.S. equipment, and any other “attributes” that an analyst might find useful in pinpointing “the bad guys.”

    …In the weeks after the attacks, rumors began circulating inside the N.S.A. that the agency, with the approval of the Bush White House, was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—the 1978 law, known as FISA, that bars domestic surveillance without a warrant.

    …When Binney heard the rumors, he was convinced that the new domestic-surveillance program employed components of ThinThread: a bastardized version, stripped of privacy controls. “It was my brainchild,” he said. “But they removed the protections, the anonymization process. When you remove that, you can target anyone.” He said that although he was not “read in” to the new secret surveillance program, “my people were brought in, and they told me, ‘Can you believe they’re doing this? They’re getting billing records on U.S. citizens! They’re putting pen registers’ ”—logs of dialled phone numbers—“ ‘on everyone in the country!’ ”

    And in fact it was the previous revelations of how NSA and law enforcement is vacuuming up reams of metadata that caused Justice Sotomayor to write in January 2012 in her concurring opinion in United States v Jones:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

    Of course, the Fourth Amendment is not concerned only
    with trespassory intrusions on property. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States , 533 U. S. 27, 31–33 (2001). Rather, even in the absence of a trespass, “a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.”

    …In cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the majority opinion’s trespassory test may provide little guidance.

    …The Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F. 3d, at 1124 (opinion of Kozinski, C. J.).

    …Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse.

    …I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on.

    …More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742;
    United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as Justice Alito notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

    So really, what did Snowden add to the sum total of what we already knew about the breadth of governmental surveillance against its own citizens? Not much if anything. But I can spot the damage he’s doing to legitimate espionage efforts as well as cooperative arrangements we have with other countries. That’s for real.

    The difference between Snowden and people like Binney is that Snowden has zero concern for national security and zero regard for the Constitution he at one time to uphold and protect.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  160. Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/16/2013 @ 4:41 pm

    He had his fingers crossed.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  161. The problem lies in this administration’s choice of targets, when it comes to Hassan, AbdulMutallab,
    Shahzad, or most recently Tsarnaev it’s a wonder how the information always gets lost, but GM dealership who gave money to McCain, voter integrity outfits, constitutional educators, they get hit with the full force of legal and administrative authority, Axelrod created the axelturf system of drowning civil debate with wretched trolls, although the method owes a little to Sunstein’s communication theory,

    narciso (3fec35)

  162. People like Drake, Binney, Weibe, and Roark have been doing it for years.

    To now significant effect. Unlike Snowden. Plus he revealed much, much more.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  163. *no

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  164. the Journolist, Ackerman, Marshall, Klein and this fellow, are like armies of replicators, minimizing
    malfeasance on one side, and making every perceived
    foible of an opponent, into some twisted caricature,

    http://theweek.com/article/index/245694/minimize-this

    It can be as significant as a Presidential candidate, or as relatively unconsequential as one
    neighborhood watch leader, who stood in the way of
    a cynical pander to a community considered not entirely secure,

    narciso (3fec35)

  165. People like Drake, Binney, Weibe, and Roark have been doing it for years.

    To now significant effect. Unlike Snowden. Plus he revealed much, much more.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/16/2013 @ 5:00 pm

    No significant effect. Really, prompting jurists like Sotomayor to say it’s time to relook the United States v. Miller decision isn’t a significant effect? There revelations were instrumental in achieving that effect.

    You are confusing getting publicity with having a significant effect. And for that matter just because it hasn’t caught your attention before, Binney, Weibe, and Drake have been getting plenty of it. They’ve been on TV, in the papers, speaking at various fora; I believe one of them spoke at the National Press Club.

    Now aside from the publicity what significant effect has Snowden had? As far as I can tell he hasn’t even shifted public opinion very much because most people already assumed the govenment was monitoring them. Congress isn’t acting on his revelations. They’re acting on the FISA court order, which probably didn’t come from Snowden as there’s no way a FISA system admin would have access to that (if Snowden delivered it to the Guardian then he must have had inside help).

    And what more, specifically, did Snowden tell us?

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  166. Really, prompting jurists like Sotomayor to say it’s time to relook the United States v. Miller decision isn’t a significant effect?

    Yes. The people themselves need to be involved. You can’t trust the elites to do it without significant pressure from the people.

    You are confusing getting publicity with having a significant effect.

    Not in the slightest.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  167. Snowden didn’t flee to China because he loved America. If you believe that Snowden is a good guy, I congratulate you and your 2 or more votes for Obama. Snowden has “handlers”. And they know the best Chinese restaurants on the planet.

    Gus (694db4)

  168. If Drake, Binney, Weibi, and Roark, have been telling this tale for years, why would the Russians need to adjust their communication protocals just now?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  169. I understand why skepticism is warranted;

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/democrats/washington-post-eric-holders-kind-of-an-awesome-ag-isnt-he/

    this would be the second time, third party communications by foreign parties were so flagrantly violated,

    narciso (3fec35)

  170. 162. How’s it go again? “The enemy of my enemy is a friend.”

    I’m so glad the military nixed putting their LGBT shock troops in harm’s way and risking a mess of $60 Million planes over a dustup between Sunnis, Shia, Alawites, Marionite Xians and Joooos.

    No no-fly-zone, yippee.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  171. 174. It’s all BS. Note that one Russian minister, over Dog’s Red-line handwringing, said why trust our intelligence on WMD’s after Iraq.

    Just another excuse to lie about their shipping Saddam’s chemical WMD to Syria Jan. 2003 and play off the Lamestream.

    Our enemies in the WH and Succubus Admin are working overtime to villianize the traitor with no evidence they’ve done anything wrong.

    You can fool some people all of the time and they’ll make certain they play them first.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  172. ==You are confusing getting publicity with having a significant effect.
    Now aside from the publicity what significant effect has Snowden had? As far as I can tell he hasn’t even shifted public opinion very much because most people already assumed the govenment was monitoring them.==

    Wrong. Here you go:

    While our corrupt media has done its best to turn the page on Barack Obama’s myriad of scandals, the deep-dive numbers in a new Fox News poll are absolutely devastating for the president. These numbers also reflect what we are seeing in other polls and Obama’s overall approval ratings — though the media are willfully ignoring reporting on both.
    In a Fox News column looking at the public’s growing distrust of Obama, Chris Stirewalt extrapolated these brutal numbers:
    — 56 percent of voters believe Obama did not try to rescue the doomed garrison in Benghazi, Libya because he didn’t want to risk his re-election.
    — 62 percent agree that Obama’s NSA phone surveillance constitutes “an unacceptable and alarming invasion of privacy rights.”
    — 63 percent believe that Obama’s Justice Department seized reporter’s records for political reasons, compared to 29 percent who take the administration’s national security argument to be true.
    — 68 percent believe that the White House isn’t telling the truth about the targeting of the president’s political enemies by the IRS. Just 24 percent believe the White House line that Team Obama neither directed nor was aware of the targeting.
    — 74 percent said that when it comes to openness and transparency, the Obama administration is either the same or worse than George W. Bush’s administration.
    The first number, showing a full 56% believe Obama ignored the pleas for help from our diplomats in Libya for political purposes, is a mind-blower. It also proves that the mainstream media’s attempt to downplay the scandal, and to vigorously fight against the truth getting out, is simply not working.
    The number showing that a full 62% oppose Obama’s NSA surveillance directly contradicts the false narrative crafted over last weekend that saw the media come out in full-force to declare the public either backed or were divided on the issue.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/06/15/Media-Fail-Poll-Shows-Obama-Lost-voter-trust

    elissa (594c4d)

  173. 178. And the actual truth is worse than the queries posed to ‘the people’.

    For example, Stevens was actually in no-mans-land to buy back Stingers from Al Qaeda that State had shipped them in Syria, or at least that’s what the scuttlebutt is out of Lybia via whispers from State and CIA survivors.

    Plain and simple, our corrupt government in Dog’s handler’s hands is our full bore enemy. The military is in their pocket.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  174. Dammit elissa, now Michelle won’t be proud of America anymore.

    nk (875f57)

  175. No lie, we have a Tiananmen Square sacrifice in our future.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  176. I think, for everyone’s sake, charges of Treason should be made with the injured party identified.

    The Amerikkkan people, or her Government, or both. Hurting our Government is not necessarily evil.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  177. Damn right, gary.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  178. the system doesn’t work as advertised for all the claims about Zazi and Headley, (they really expect us to believe they didn’t know the latter had been at Mumbai,) we have the Boston mutilations, somehow the data never reached the BCIC, from the TIDES list.

    narciso (3fec35)

  179. 174. If Drake, Binney, Weibi, and Roark, have been telling this tale for years, why would the Russians need to adjust their communication protocals just now?

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2013 @ 5:37 pm

    Because Drake, Binney, Weibe, Roark weren’t spilling their guts about NSA SIGINT programs directed at Russian leadership communications. They don’t use email, text message, or cell phones for sensitive communications. Precisely because they’re independently aware of all the vulnerabilities of the systems that the whistleblowers are telling the American people NSA is exploiting to spy on its own people.

    No world leader uses those systems because they’re so vulnerable. Have you ever seen the kind of equipment the White House Communications Agency deploys with?

    Only Snowden has been traitorous enough to expose programs entirely unrelated to the NSA’s domestic spying operations.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  180. elissa, I’ve seen that Fox News poll as well. Have you looked at other poll results? Some show the majority of people of people in favor of this program.

    http://www.newser.com/story/169282/majority-of-americans-support-phone-spying.html

    (Newser) – For all the outcry over the NSA’s phone snooping this week, the majority of Americans are A-OK with the government tracking their phone calls. That’s according to a new poll by Pew Research and the Washington Post, which found 56% believe tracking calls is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism. The study of 1,004 adults also found 45% supported the government going even further than it has, agreeing it should be able to monitor everyone’s email and online activities if it might prevent future terrorist attacks, reports the Post.

    Support for phone tracking is even higher amongst Democrats, with 64% calling the practice acceptable, versus 52% of Republicans. That’s a dramatic shift from the W. Bush era: A 2006 poll showed 51% approval across the board for phone tracking, but 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable back then, versus 37% of Democrats, Pew reports. The new study also found 62% believe investigating terrorist threats is more important than not intruding on privacy.

    It’s impossible to compare polls across the board because they differ so much in sample size, partisan make up of the sample, how the questions are phrased, etc.

    It’s also impossible to compare even the same pollsters over time because even if they phrase the questions exactly the same year-to-year and use the same methodology other factors will skew the results. Such as how close to 9/11/2001, the 2004 Madrid subway bombing, the 2010 attempted Times Square bombing, etc. And, as the article notes, who is President given the partisan shift in support.

    I suppose if one were to go to the trouble of building a Real Clear Politics-style average of all the polls taken each year going back to 2002 one might detect some kind of impact Snowden has had. And certainly the poll average after Snowden wouldn’t be outside any of the extremes from previous years.

    But the bottom line for me is that if you look at polls in the past years you’ll see that the vast majority of Americans already believed the government was spying on them. They’ve been polled on the subject every year since 2002; how could they not believe it if they had an opinion on whether it was acceptable or not?

    So I stand by my statement that “[a]s far as I can tell he hasn’t even shifted public opinion very much because most people already assumed the government was monitoring them.”

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  181. I was right; Snowden may beat out Obama in the race to destroy our no-longer-special relationship with Britain.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits?CMP=twt_gu

    GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits

    Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.

    The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.

    …There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls “ground-breaking intelligence capabilities” to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

    This included:

    • Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates’ use of computers;

    • Penetrating the security on delegates’ BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

    • Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

    • Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

    • Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

    This confirms several things I’ve said. First, note Medvedev was communicating via secure SATCOM. By exposing a program that had nothing to do in any way with threatening any American’s civil liberties he has confirmed his place in the traitor pile.

    By confirming the depth and breadth of GCHQ’s intelligence efforts (against foreign nationals in Britain it must be emphasized, and not against British subjects) he has demonstrated to the world that America is the worst possible ally you can have.

    Obama has already demonstrated that to much of the world by his support of revolutionaries against allies like Mubarak or at least the reformed like former terrorist sponsor cum terrorist informant Qaddaffi. But now other countries who might have at least cooperated with us in secret know they can no longer count on that cooperation remaining secret.

    The only way a country can conduct this kind of espionage (not that I’m going to confirm it takes place but as the Guardian notes there is always widespread belief it does take place; the cardinal rule is if you’re cleared you never, ever confirm it) against even friendly governments during negotiations to determine their true positions and what faction they belong to in those negotiations is if they never share any of that information with the US. An intelligence sharing agreement with the US is, as Snowden is showing the world, a death sentence for your covert services.

    He’ll reveal details of that intelligence sharing agreement right down to the methods you use. And if anyone thinks no foreign governments are learning anything new do you think they would have snagged all that data for the cell phones and laptops of the lower level officials if that were true?

    Earlier Former Conservative asserted that Snowden told us “much, much more” about NSA’s domestic spying program than previous whistleblowers. So I asked him what specifically Snowden told us about NSA domestic surveillance that the previous whistleblowers hadn’t. Because aa far as I can tell, little if anything at all.

    But I can see the damage he’s doing. And it’s a lot. So we need to stop inflating the service he’s performed (and I admit he performed a service) and minimizing the damage he’s doing.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  182. it’s kinda hard to sum up all this administration’s scandals without going a little long.

    Well, I think we can simplify: let’s just list the impeachable ones:

    1. Using the IRS to attack his opposition’s grass roots and steal re-election.

    2. Allowing the security apparatus to run wild and shred the Bill of Rights. They have even managed to shred the spirit behind the 3rd Amendment.

    3. Using the power of the state to prosecute enemies while ignoring or condoning outright lawlessness by his friends.

    There are probably more involving foreign policy, phony loans, Benghazi, gun-walking and the 2nd Amendment, but those are good enough to start.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  183. Comment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/16

    But now other countries who might have at least cooperated with us in secret know they can no longer count on that cooperation remaining secret.

    It’s not always that important for something to remain totally secret (example: Jordan)

    And if it is, you have to wonder about how much of an ally they are.

    There are things that are lost, but there are otehr things that are not lost.

    Waht the government needs to do is not keep all of its records in one place, and not centralize intelligence, and keep something very very secret and important off all systems.

    Even without Snowden this could be stolen, and maybe without anyone knowing.

    Will anyone have enough sense to understand that?don’t know.

    They might be doing some of that because of inefficiency, and/or some lower ranking people might realize they need to keep some info off the system.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  184. 140. …When you balance the two out, the oath to defend the constitution outweighs the oath to keep NSA’s clandestine illegal activities quiet.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/16/2013 @ 1:51 pm

    It looks like you’re wrong. He never took an oath to defend the Constitution. Those rubes in the Army just thought he was swearing to do that, but in reality he took a SOOPER SEKRIT oath to defend the Declaration of Independence. Snowden during an online Q&A:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

    More fundamentally, the “US Persons” protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal.”

    The Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document justifying the revolution by citing universal principles, but it’s not the fundamental law of the land. The Constitution is. And per the Constitution the government is not only allowed but required to defend the country against foreign enemies. Including in this digital age.

    So this is how this weasel tries to justify all the leaks about legitimate NSA operations. Citizen-of-the-World Snowden isn’t half the man Drake is. Drake stayed to fight the charges precisely because as he stated his primary duty was to the people of the United States.

    Snowden’s isn’t. It’s to everybody. Therefore to nobody. Except obviously himself.

    I am still waiting to hear some specific information that Snowden has made public that tells us a much, much more about the breathtaking scope of the NSA’s powers. Even a little bit more then the previous leakers who didn’t run to China because their primary duty as made clear by the Constitution is to “US persons.”

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  185. Nit Picking Time….

    The Declaration of Independence is the Founding Document of the Country;
    The Constitution is just the foundation for the Government, and it – particularly in the Bill of Rights – pays obeisance to the Founding Principles found in the DoI,
    and in English Common Law.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  186. So?

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  187. He defects to HK, a satrap of China, and then lectures us on the declaration, the definition of Chutzpah

    narciso (3fec35)

  188. The Constitution pays obeisance to the founding principles as stated in the Declaration of Independence for the benefit of “We the people of the United States.” No others. To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

    Not the Chinese.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)

  189. I’m just curious; does anyone still believe Snowden isn’t making the story about Snowden? I don’t know about you, but if I wanted to make the story about what the NSA is doing I wouldn’t be doing only line chat sessions sponsored by The Guardian about my moral superiority.

    Steve57 (1ca8bb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1670 secs.