You have to be utterly ignorant of history, in a state of denial, dumb as grits or

[cali]

partisan to the point of mindlessness, to believe that the 16 major national security agencies aren't to some degree or another abusing their powers.

Furthermore, national security is an 80+ billion dollar a year industry. Yes, that 80 freakin' billion. One of the things that means is that a lot of the employees of private companies are able to do a lot of shit without any oversight. Speaking of oversight, there's vanishingly little of it from Congress over many parts of agencies like the CIA and NSA.

The CIA and NSA have abused their power nonstop since their creations. That's not hyperbole. It's well documented. The difference is that now, they have more funds than ever and more tools than ever.

FISA Courts are weak sauce as far as protection of civil liberties. No matter how often they deny it, they rubber stamp warrant applications. There is no "defense" side in these courts. They grant over 99% of requests for warrants.

You can nitpick, call it all legal, whatever you wish for as how long as you wish, but basic common sense and a bit of knowledge of the past make it clear that abuses in abundance are being carried out.

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R.

[JoePhilly]

2. Maybe we should cut the government's funds and shrink government until

its small enough to drown in a bath tub.

[cali]

5. what on earth does that have to do with my op?

[JoePhilly]

7. Well ...

if our government can't be trusted in any way shape or form ... and ... as you said ...

The CIA and NSA have abused their power nonstop since their creations. That's not hyperbole. It's well documented. The difference is that now, they have more funds than ever and more tools than ever.

What other choice do we have but to de-fund and shrink our evil government?

[Skittles]

9. lol

oh dear

[Le Taz Hot]

109. It was a stretch

but he managed to get it in there, didn't he? Good goddess.

[sabrina 1]

14. Maybe we could, you know, oversee what these overly funded, runaway agencies are doing

in our name? When was the last time Congress held an oversight hearing on the activities of the CIA all over the world? In public I mean, all this secret stuff is part of the problem. If they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to hide, right??

Maybe we should stop appointing Republicans, like Clapper to positions like Director of Intelligence in Democratic Administrations especially since he is a former employee of Booz Allen, one of those multi billion dollar 'Security Firms' that benefit so much from our 'WOT' and possibly from information they receive from people in top government positions?

Maybe we could be a bit cautious, just a teeny bit, about placing the fate of our Constitutional Rights in the hands of a for profit, mostly Republican, multi billion dollar Private 'Security' firm like Booz Allen, once again mentioned in the latest leaks about wrong doing? Not the first time for them.

So how about ridding the country of these Private For Profit Security Corps and stopping the revolving door between them and top Government positions where they have access to information that could create a huge conflict of interest?

How about the Government do its job and stop handing out multi billion dollar contracts to shady 'security firms' like Booz Allen?

I don't know about you, but I never trusted Ari Fleischer or any of Bush's guys with my Constitutional Rights and would never, ever vote for any of them. Yet our Democratic president has retained and/or appointed so many of these left over Republicans, like Clapper.

[KittyWampus]

51. Wait… so you think the Government… which the OP trashes initially, is the solution?

[rhett o rick]

66. Please tell us what you think the "solution" is. nm

[H2O Man]

23. To misrepresent

what the OP states in this manner is a tactic that would fail in any good junior high school debate.

[KittyWampus]

49. It isn't misrepresenting because it's exactly the premise used by those who want to kill

government. The point could have been made without initially trashing government.

[H2O Man]

58. It absolutely is

misrepresenting a DUers valid point by saying it is "exactly" what some other idiots do when they have a completely different goal. It's "exactly" the difference between sugar and shit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

155. x2

Exactly.

[JDPriestly]

32. We need a strong, capable government that is interested in

protecting our rights not abusing them.

If we drowned our government in the bathtub, we would be drowned in corporate poisons, duped by corporate gangsters and abused by corporate heavies.

No. We of the 99% need a government large enough to represent our interests and keep the 1% under control. Unfortunately our government has been bought by the 1% and is not representing or protecting our interests. This surveillance program proves it.

You can rest assured that the mega-national corporations protect their corporate data and secrets so that no one, not even the NSA, has access to them.

[pscot]

76. That's it in a nutshell

The key question is, how do we get from here to there?

[pmorlan1]

97. 1st step

A good place to start is by picking up your NSA monitored phone and calling your Congressional Reps and letting them know that you demand they have public hearings so that we can find out what the hell they have allowed the NSA to do in our names. I called my Congressional Rep and two Senators today. I plan on sending them a follow up email tomorrow. I will keep on calling them until they do their Congressional oversight. If they think the voters are going to fire them in the next election they will respond and if they don't then we will campaign against them. We aren't powerless in this fight. It's time that we remind all of them that they work for us not the other way around.

[pmorlan1]

98. Great Video

I don't watch TV but someone posted this link to a blog post on Twitter. The blog post included this great video from some show on MSNBC where one of the guests or participants was verbally "on fire". The show started out with this no-nothing guy pretty much telling everyone that we needed to surrender to the NSA spying. This other guy, Ari Melber, torched this guy with information. It was fabulous! I was like YES! lol

Check it out


http://digbysblog.blogspot.hk/2013/06/ari-melber-says-count-me-out.html

[grasswire]

101. Melber was on fire!

Ari Melber. My hero.

[cali]

84. but I said nothing of the sort, genius. And you know that.

[fjlovato]

144. Wrong Blog

JoePhilly, You on the wrong blog - the Tea Party blogs are somewhere else (I think). The political spectrum is not linear but circular. The far left and far right are not at the ends but rather they are side to side in a circle. Go trouble the Tea Partiers and get off this blog which is supposedly for Democrats.

[limpyhobbler]

160. We should

We should de-fund and shrink the evil part of the government.

Move the money to the non-evil part. They could use. it.

[Skittles]

8. you're not leaving them any options, cali

they HAVE to defend the indefensible so forgive them if they veer off path

[JoePhilly]

12. From what I read lately on DU, (including in this OP) we're all doomed.

We live in a police state. We have no freedoms or rights left. No privacy of any kind.

And the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government, are all aligned against us.

[Skittles]

15. you need to stop with the black and white thinking

it makes you sound like a Fox News fan

[JoePhilly]

25. I've read those things on DU. Multiple times. Today.

[DirkGently]

27. I've read the leak was a Bush family conspiracy to embarass Obama

from ... CHINA! You see, Snowden was a "plant," and Glen Greenwald, after apparently engineering the war in Iraq (who knew) and founding the Cato institute, hatched this plot to release genuine documents illustrating widespread surveillance in order to ... make Obama look bad.

You read those things today, too, because I saw you in the threads.

You don't want to compare levels of idiocy between the people concerned about possibly illegal domestic surveillance -- a thing that happened before, quite recently -- and the people exploding cranially on the basis the story is politically inconvenient for Obama.

You know you don't.

[treestar]

118. No, the OP is putting for the usual Libertarian position

And will dodge the question posed by Joe Philly throughout the post - because the point is quite good and OP has painted self into a corner.

Managing bureaucracies is one thing, and discussing that would be too hard and take some nuance, so reduce it to black and white.

[blackspade]

156. like joe, you must be reading either the wrong OP...

or deliberately misinterpreting it.

The OP was not black and white and was calling for stronger effective governance and oversite.

[treestar]

173. You were reading an imaginary OP

There is no call for stronger anything. It's pure cynicism. There's no proof for the allegation that the FISA courts don't work at all, either.

And no proof that it always goes wrong or that even most government agents don't do their jobs honestly.

[blackspade]

174. Cynicism is like most 'isms,' is subjective.

You seem to be taking something totally different from the OP than I.

As for proof that the that the FISA courts don't work, well, there is no proof that they do either.
And based on some of the new data coming out about these programs, they don't appear to be working as advertized.
The problem is a lack of transparency to the process.

As for them always being wrong, I don't see that they are, but I also don't see that they aren't. Without proper oversight by Congress or other independent agency there is no way of knowing one way or the other. Given the history attached to this and earlier programs, it is not far fetched to assume that there are shady goings on.

I assume that most government employees are pretty honest having been one and worked with them for the last 2 decades.
But, I know from experience that it only takes a few corrupt individuals in positions of power to undermine and pervert a department.

[sabrina 1]

18. The people didn't vote for Booz Allen or any other Private Security firm, nor did we vote for

Clapper, as Director of Intelligence, former Private Security Firm Booz Allen employee, and former Bush guy. We didn't agree to trust these people with our rights.

[JoePhilly]

26. Do you vote for every appointed official in all parts of the government?

You vote for representatives. By doing so, you delegate such decisions to them.

If you don't like the decisions they make, you vote to remove them.

[usaf-vet]

128. Gerrymandering

and gerrymander districts. Try voting out the devil himself in a gerrymander district. Ain't going to happen. THAT's why they do it in the first place. Our democracy is seriously broken. Citizen United and corporate power have beat it to death and put it on life support. They are just waiting for the right moment to pull the plug.

[JoePhilly]

131. True, but only effects the House.

And when they "pull the plug", what does that mean?

[usaf-vet]

149. It means they have kill Democracy as we know it.

We become a third world democracy run by the very very rich for the rich. If the repugs ever take the WH, senate, house and SCOTUS thats when the plug will be pulled for the rest of us. 2016?

By the way you are right about gerrymandering. It only effects the house. So how is that working out for us? We will now have to wait until 2020 before there is any chance to reverse this misrepresentation.

[BeyondGeography]

37. Totally doomed, man

I think you should change your name to MikePhilly, just to throw them a curveball.

[KittyWampus]

53. No, many of us aren't defending the indefensible. We are just sticking to FACTS.

We are part of the fact-based reality. Which means dealing with things as they actually are not engaging in an outrage circlejerk.

Be outraged first… fact check later. That is exactly what is going on right now.

[Skittles]

56. no, you are not seeing the big picture

you are compartmentalizing....this is NOT all about "scandals" that may or may not impact Obama's image - we're talking about the DIRECTION America is taking

[cali]

85. really, hon? what part of my op isn't factual? do tell.

[boilerbabe]

88. oh please, blind partisans never stick to facts. if the facts are wrong then you spin like a top. n

[treestar]

119. +1

And then double down and attempt to defend the indefensible or assert the utterly illogical in order to stay in line!

[rhett o rick]

143. Looks to me like when someone points out an iceberg that some immediately

start to belittle the person that pointed it out. Then they try to rationalize that it's just small and harmless. They seem to be afraid to look beneath the surface.

We know that the government has the capability to amass massive amounts of data. It even appears that they are doing that. Even if we can believe this administration wont use it for badness, the data is available to the next Cheney. Or maybe the data will be used by corporations that either buy the data or steal the data. The problem is allowing the collection of the data.

[clarice]

151. lol.....you said circle jerk. nt

[blackspade]

158. And what facts would those be?

You keep saying things like

fact-based reality

without either defining what you mean or demonstrating these 'facts.'

[leveymg]

60. It's just an unsubtle way of suggesting that you're a Rovian Stooge for suggesting that the Admin is

less than perfect and might need some urging from below to change the way it manages certain federal agencies.

You probably don't like hotdogs and haven't been to a baseball game lately, also. That practically makes you a Commie Bastard - get the drift, traitor? Well, something to that effect.

Great post. (That part's literal)

[liberal_at_heart]

86. apparently if you dare ever question the government at all you are siding with the republicans and

libertarians. Same old crap. Same old bullying tactic. Sad thing is they don't realize it doesn't work. We will never stop questioning our government.

[treestar]

116. Government bureaucracies

You're forgetting some of them do things progressives support. Libertarians OTOH, don't approve of any of them.

Right wingers are equally sure that all welfare programs are corrupt bureaucracies.

So you'd need to admit things go wrong there, too and that you basically agree with Libertarians.

[rhett o rick]

68. I knew you'd slip up and expose yourself one day. We all know where that came from. nm

[SkyDaddy7]

122. More misguided DU "OUTRAGE"...

The NSA will NEVER EVER violate Americans civil liberties like state & local cops do on an hourly basis.

Seriously, Ed Snowden thrrew away his life to "leak" info that was already in the public domain! HELL, the info has been out so long that "NSA Wiretapping" has had its own Wikipedia page for YEARS!!!

This Snowden character must have had no clue this info was already out there & ran straight to the media...And now his life is ruined & for what? Oh yeah, now we know the actual Top Secret name for the program!! SAD!!! Other than that what has he told the American public that those who pay attention did not already know? NOTHING!!!

The same goes for Bradley Manning...He told us nothing we did not already know...Except maybe some useless diplomatic gossip!! SAD!!!

And folks compare this to the Pentagon Papers!?!?! LOL!

[still_one]

3. Fine, and congress authorized it, and because we are a representative government, people voted for

Those politicians, so if they have a problem with it, then vote for people who will change it

[reusrename]

64. I don't think a lot of these folks were actually elected.

You know that we don't actually bother with counting people's votes anymore, don't you?

[still_one]

67. I disagree. 2008 proves that. 2000 also proves that

[Abq_Sarah]

102. I have to wonder if what Congress supposedly authorized

Bears any resemblance to what is actually going on. I have a hard time blaming this on the congress when 90% of them are left out of the loop when it comes to any substantive details. Even those on the intelligence committees are never given 100% access.

[still_one]

139. Even the movie 9/11 discussed this. Now, in the movie a Congress person indicated most never read

the bill, however, ignorance is no excuse, only reinforces their fault.

They also reauthorized it, and from all appearances, they would authorize it again

[mike_c]

4. 80 billion a year for security....

If the rest of the world is THAT great a threat to us, WTF?

[david13]

6. You didn't mention one thing.

This is what the people want. They think this makes them 'safe' from whatever they are afraid of. This is what they voted for, this is what both parties have come to do in the last 12 years, and less so for many years prior to that. And this is what maybe 93% of the population are ready willing and able to go along with.
No rights, no privacy, none whatsoever.
dc

[H2O Man]

13. "the people"

Some of "the people" certainly are okay with the lose of rights, in return for a sense of security. Others are not. And others give it little if any thought.

We could speculate on the percentages of people that fall into any of these or other groups of "the people." What is certain, however, is that the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the rights of individuals and minority groups. The majority cannot suspend the rights of those individuals and small groups. The best example of this is, of course, found in free speech. We all find some people obnoxious and offensive -- I found Dick Cheney obscene, for example -- yet Constitutional Law (the federal court cases that interpret the Constitution) on free speech is largely that defining the rights of the obnoxious and offensive people.

I'm not implying that the Bill of Rights provides unrestrictable license. But speculating on the percentage of folks who are mighty fine with domestic spying risks taking the focus on the other, extremely important points raised in the OP.

[Abq_Sarah]

103. Shorter version:

93% of "the people" can't violate the constitutional rights of the 7%.

Either the 4th amendment means citizens are entitled to due process or we may as well just make this shit up as we go.

[Hissyspit]

20. This:

[totodeinhere]

74. Interesting. Both parties are moving in different directions on this.

It obviously has to do with who is in the White House. In 2006 Bush was in the White House and a majority of Republicans supported the surveillance programs and a majority of Democrats opposed them. Now it has almost flipped. Obama is in the White House and now a majority of Democrats support them and support for them among Republicans has gone down 23 points. It's just amazing how much partisanship colors everything.

And of course you see this very thing here at DU where some posters who wouldn't dream of supporting these programs if the GOP controlled the White House do support them because Barack Obama happens to be president. And I suspect that you would see the opposite effect at some right wing websites.

[HiPointDem]

95. which just goes to show you how many political hacks there are posting on political websites.

[OnyxCollie]

135. Yet in 2002, liberals were more supportive of liberty-restricting laws like the USA PATRIOT Act.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x582516#582750

Methodology

The data for this study was obtained through the Inter-university Consortium for Political
and Social Research. The data is a Washington Post September 11th Poll, conducted September
3-6, 2002. The poll was conducted through telephone surveys, whereby the households called
were chosen by random-digit dialing and the respondent chosen was an adult who last had a
birthday and was present at the time. The data set includes 1,003 cases and 81 variables.
This data was chosen for the respondent’s views on whether the September 11 attacks had
changed their lives, if people could be trusted, if they were concerned for their safety, if they
supported laws to aid the F.B.I. in the investigation of terrorism, whether they would sacrifice
freedoms to aid in the investigation of terrorism, if they approved of their congressional
representative, if they intended to re-elect their congressional representative, and which party
they would be voting for in the 2002 congressional election. Supporting laws, sacrificing
freedom, approval and re-election of congressional representatives, and choice of political party
for congressional representative vote will serve as the dependent variables. Whether 9/11
changed their lives, if the change affected their day-to-day lives or if it changed the way they
thought about things, and trust in people will serve as the independent variables. Concern over
personally being the victim of a terrorist attack will serve as the control variable.

“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification
http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

One of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election was the strength
and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to
the terrorist attacks of September 11. Scholars have suggested that this belief was the
result of a campaign of false information and innuendo from the Bush administration.
We call this the information environment explanation. Using a technique of “challenge
interviews” on a sample of voters who reported believing in a link between Saddam and
9/11, we propose instead a social psychological explanation for the belief in this link.
We identify a number of social psychological mechanisms voters use to maintain false
beliefs in the face of disconfirming information, and we show that for a subset of voters
the main reason to believe in the link was that it made sense of the administration’s decision
to go to war against Iraq. We call this inferred justification: for these voters, the fact of the
war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties
between Iraq and 9/11.

~snip~

In this article we present data that contest this explanation, and we develop
a social psychological explanation for the belief in the link between Saddam
and Al Qaeda. We argue that the primary causal agent for misperception is not
the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent’s willingness to
believe particular kinds of information. Our explanation draws on a psychological
model of information processing that scholars have labeled motivated reasoning.
This model envisions respondents as processing and responding to information
defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring,
discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information
(DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000). Motivated reasoning is
a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger
and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to
relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that
contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated
reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve
cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information
altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the
challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen
et al. 2006). The process of substantive counterarguing is especially consequential,
as the cognitive exercise of generating counterarguments often has the ironic
effect of solidifying and strengthening the original opinion leading to entrenched,
polarized attitudes (Kunda 1990; Lodge and Taber 2000; Sunstein 2000; Lodge and
Taber 2000). This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms
their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them,
regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

~snip~

We chose to focus on Republican partisans because of the well-documented
partisan difference in the perception of the validity of this link. We assumed
that Democratic partisans would not have a strong desire to defend the Bush
administration on this issue, thus severely reducing the variation we would
capture in responses. Our choice of subjects means that we are investigating how
partisanship produces and reinforces political (mis)information. Our choice of
subjects should not be taken to imply that the processes we are examining here
are particular to conservatives: we expect that, had we conducted this study in
the late 1990s, we would have found a high degree of motivated reasoning
regarding the behavior of President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.
Previous research on motivated reasoning has found it among respondents of all
classes, ages, races, genders, and affiliations (see Lodge and Tabor 2000).

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

157. The people have been conditioned and lied to, that's why

they think they need to be protected from some awful boogie man coming to get them.
This is corporate driven, always follow the money, but that's not always easy to do.

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. In America.

Being "utterly ignorant of history, in a state of denial, dumb as grits, or partisan to the point of mindlessness" are qualifications.

The remaining 10% should be looking for a place to hide.

[RC]

40. +10

Way too many people have the idea, they are not affected by what our government does. You're correct, the ignorance of too many people is really mind numbing.

[ProSense]

11. And you have to

"utterly ignorant of history, in a state of denial, dumb as grits or...mindlessness" to believe the bogus spin surrounding this leak.

People should stop pretending that Obama hasn't implemented safeguards after Bush and that the U.S. doesn't have a history of surveillance. Hell, the FISA court was implemented to prevent these very kinds of abuses.

Bush came under attack because he bypassed the FISA court and went directly to intentionally spying on Americans. Bush broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979).

The government has been collecting information for decades. The question has always been whether or not those activities violate the Constitution, even when they are in compliance with existing laws.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966764

Here is Congressional testimony on another program implemented in 1997.

Statement of The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of the Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
The Fourth Amendment and Carnivore
July 28, 2000

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) would like to submit comments to be included for the record regarding the Fourth Amendment and the issues raised by the FBI's Carnivore system.

<...>

The Carnivore system has received a lot of press recently, but the FBI has not been forthcoming about how the Carnivore system actually works. Civil liberties groups have often been quoted as noting that Carnivore is a "black box" leaving us to guess at its inner workings.

<...>

Second, analogizing pen register information from a traditional land-line phone system to the Internet is incorrect. The Carnivore system likely can capture content as well as numbers. Email addresses for example are personal to an individual rather than to a particular household. We don't know for sure, but it is possible that Carnivore has access to the subject line information of email messages. Subject lines are content. For example, "leaving work at 5pm today - meet me at the bus stop", contains a lot of information about travel plans of a target on a particular day. Carnivore can also track other content information such as the URLs of web sites visited. Seeing the URLs not only give routing information but content as well. For example, someone visiting www.eff.org could presumably be interested in civil liberties issues online.

<...>

Currently, there is little if any public oversight over the FBI's use of its Carnivore system. The FBI has not allowed the ISP to inspect the device, nor have any of the advocacy groups been allowed to examine it. In fact, the ACLU has had to resort to filing a FOIA request to try to get at the source code. Allowing the FBI to install and use a device such as this unchecked by any public oversight, threatens the openness we enjoy and expect in our society. Robert Corn-Revere, in his testimony, noted that his case is sealed. We can't even look to that for guidance.

- more -

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Carnivore/20000728_eff_house_carnivore.html

FBI Still Hunting With Carnivore

By Margret Johnston, PCWorld
Oct 20, 2000 7:00 AM

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is still developing its Carnivore Internet surveillance tool, according to FBI documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

<...>

EPIC filed the FOIA lawsuit after the FBI earlier this year revealed the existence of Carnivore. The lawsuit seeks the public release of all FBI records concerning Carnivore, including the source code, other technical details, and legal analyses addressing the potential privacy implications of the technology. The source code of the Carnivore system was withheld in the first batch of documents (see "Does Carnivore Eat Privacy Rights?&quot .

Carnivore has outraged not only EPIC, but also the American Civil Liberties Union and some members of Congress. The FBI has used it in at least 25 criminal and national security investigations, according to the FBI, which maintains the system is legal.

The documents in EPIC's hands also confirm that Carnivore was conceived under the name Omnivore in February 1997. It was proposed originally for a Solaris X86 computer. Omnivore was replaced by Carnivore running on a Windows NT-based computer in June 1999. Other parts of the documents include reviews of tests for performance, and recovery from attacks and crashes for both Omnivore and Carnivore. Carnivore consists of a PC running Windows and proprietary software.

- more -

http://www.pcworld.com/article/32664/article.html

After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before. The Associated Press reported in mid-January 2005 that the FBI essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in 2001, in favor of commercially available software, such as NarusInsight (a mass surveillance system).[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)#Controversy

Abandoned in 2001, shortly before Bush launched his illegal wiretapping program.

For the Republican opportunists, Bush actually spied on people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

HELLO WORLD! George W. Bush illegally spied on American citizens. Read all about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022963663

Why The NSA’s Secret Online Surveillance Should Scare You
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/07/2120141/why-the-nsas-secret-online-surveillance-should-scare-you/

This whole NSA story is nothing more than recycled outrage. Glenn Greenwald didn't break shit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022967844

What can we all agree on?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969079

Now, the claims that the current is the "most important" or "biggest" leak in American history may have to do with the fact that it comes at a time when technology is so advanced and in the aftermath of Bush's illegal spying.

The fact remains that Edward Snowden leaked classified information on a legal program.

[YoungDemCA]

19. I thought President Obama was supposed to be different...

Are you telling me that we shouldn't have expected better from him?

Something being legal doesn't justify it. It's legal to pay workers $8.00/hour in many if not most parts of America. It's legal to hire lawyers to exploit the many loopholes in the tax code, such as having tax-free offshore accounts.

This legalistic (literally!) defense of bad, misguided, unjust policies is disappointing, at best.

[markpkessinger]

39. Thank you

Very well said!

[DirkGently]

24. Don't you think the 2011 ruling on the Obama administration's illegal spying

should be released?

That's the issue as I see it. The administration has kept in place the Bush Doctrine proposition that even inquiries into the legality of Executive Branch surveillance is classified. We know Bush put that in place so that he could secretly break the law.

Even giving Obama every benefit of the doubt, why would the administration fight to keep the public from seeing how the PRISM law has already been unconstitutionally violated?

[B Calm]

34. ++++

[JDPriestly]

38. Smith v. Maryland was decided in 1979 before the advent of today's

technology. It might take a long time, but I expect that decision to be overturned because the current application of that law and of FISA and the Patriot Act with regard to surveillance and gathering of private information will inevitably chill speech and violates the Constitution. That law is too old. It did not apply to this blanket use of the ability to subpoena pen registers.

I hope you read my post on what the Austrian newspapers are saying about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986061

Europe has been trying to negotiate protections for their citizens for a couple of years, and Merkel intends to discuss these issues when Obama visits. I understand from the article that I read that Obama will visit Germany (?) in the coming week or weeks. I don't know if the Merkel/Obama meeting will take place in Germany or not. I assume it will from the wording of the article I read about it, but the article was not that explicit.

Germany's laws protecting speech are very different than ours. At least they were. Germany protected employees from discrimination in the workplace based on their speech. We don't do that. I don't know whether that is still the law in Germany now that the EU has developed protocols for this sort of thing.

[Zoeisright]

50. ^^^THIS^^^

Exactly.

[uponit7771]

80. +1

[blackspade]

161. There is an issue here though

You say:

The fact remains that Edward Snowden leaked classified information on a legal program.

In what way is it legal? Under what statute? What was the reasoning? When was it adjudicated?
What judicial recourse is there for the average American to challenge it's legality?

The information on it's face is unconstitutional. In my case there is no legal reason to gather data from any source unless the government has a specific suspicion that I have engaged in wrong doing. And they need a warrant. The problem is that folks like me have no legal recourse to challenge this type of surveillance because I am either unaware of it or don't have the bucket loads of cash that it would take.

[jberryhill]

16. There is no "defense side" for any warrant application

When the police go to a court for a warrant, there is no "defense" side. I don't understand that criticism. Warrant applications are ex parte procedures.

[DirkGently]

17. I'm going with "mindless partisanship." The sputtering is hilarious.

It's not like the NSA hasn't been caught carrying out illegal orders to spy on Americans, given by the President (the last one).

And this one, apparently, given the 2011 order on the PRISM law that the administration doesn't want anyone to see.

But it's not an Obama-only issue. We have built an infrastructure designed to permit abusive surveillance.

What kind of person doesn't care about that, or regards even bringing it up as as some kind of anti-Dem conspiracy?

[YoungDemCA]

21. Well said.

I agree with your post.

[aquart]

31. My biggest worry, based on our history...

is that every time we point out an illegality, the idiots known as Congress will pass a new law making it legal.

So I've accepted that we'll lose this fight, but we should always keep them very very nervous about it.

[DirkGently]

42. You can't make a law legalizing violating the Constitution.

That's what Bush got nailed for. That's what the 2011 PRISM ruling was (we think).

What we need to do is convince our very-much-better-than-Bush President that he can't have his progressive leadership cake, and eat the Bush-legacy of secret surveillance, too. Which is a terribly strained metaphor, I realize.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Grits aren't dumb. I like grits. Apart from that: carry on.

However, I would add: FISA courts can't be used for wholly domestic operations. Claiming Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants are an appropriate salve to spying on all Americans without any probable cause, without naming specific places search or items to be searched for in is direct violation of the 4A. Too many people are using FISA an escape clause.

[Adam-Bomb]

83. Hey, I was going to say that!

Grits......mmmmm.

I am starting to sound like a broken record saying how annoyed I am
with these Numbnuts taking away our freedoms.

Good thread, OP, even if the subject matter pisses me off.

[aquart]

28. Uh huh.

Oddly enough, having read some of my grandfather's FBI file, I feel more comfortable with metadata collection than I would be with agent surveillance and tons of written reports colored by agent opinions.

[G_j]

29. K&R!

[WillyT]

30. I'm Gonna Go With E:)... All Of The Above...

[JaneyVee]

33. Alot of name-calling going on on DU as of late. I don't like it.

[HangOnKids]

41. Hide the thread or ignore the poster

What you like is not a very big deal JaneyVee. I hate to break it to you.

[JaneyVee]

43. Meh. I have zero people on ignore, and hiding threads doesn't help the insults & hyperbole.

[HangOnKids]

44. This is a rough board

People have strong opinions and DU can be a wild ass ride. Hence my name, HangOnKids!

[IDemo]

82. Ha.

Try CNN, NBCNEWS, Yahoo, or even HuffPo. DU is Springfield in comparison.

[avaistheone1]

35. Agreed. Look at all the govt violations that were uncovered by the Church Committee decades ago.

Look like the government and their contracted henchmen are about to the same old tricks.

[Phlem]

36. But but but

your a hater

Excellent post, also to add, about 30 or more years ago "Republican Obstructionism" used to called "Stonewalling" it's hardly anything new as people here may lead us to believe.



-p

[xiamiam]

45. I love the title to your post..content as well..but the title just lays it out..thanks..nt

[d06204]

46. Let's just say your hypothesis is correct...

in what way have these "abuses" negatively effected you or the country, or our way of life?

[blackspade]

162. By instilling a climate of distrust and fear of our government?

Or how about just a classic violation of the 4th amendment for the financial gain of corporations and social control by the 1%?

[KittyWampus]

47. Your opening premise= Gover Norquist's wet dream. NOW- if you'd opened w/need to cut out private

contractors and provide more oversight and regulation and less money...

[cali]

146. what absolute horse pucky.

I am not advocating shrinking the government and swirling it down the drain.

You are making crap up- as always. disgusting habit of yours.

[Laelth]

48. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[DCBob]

52. So how do you propose we fix that problem?

Currently it appears what they are doing is legal. Seems we need to change some laws or create better oversight or put in more restrictions. That's congress's job I believe.

[Amonester]

106. Nothing to propose other than scrap the whole thing, and fire the gov. workers there.

A proposition which will never happen in reality.

Can you imagine this obstructionist CongRe$$ if Obama does it: "By ending these programs, this Democrat President has chosen to fold the tent and go home in front of the enemy. He is endangering our national security" or "This Democratic President caved to his party's fringe of the radical left, and chose to let enemies of the US prepare their next terrorist acts freely: Remember 911!! This Democratic President is WEAK on terror!"

Not a tiny chance anything like it will ever happen.

[LWolf]

54. You have such a distinct turn of phrase.

In this case, I have to agree.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. But..but..it's absolutely essential to keep the scary bogeymen, like Snowden and Manning, at bay.

Just look at all the (EEK!!) embarrassment they've caused already by letting the people see what their government does.

[obxhead]

57. I can agree with this entire post, but

does that make it OK?

[OKNancy]

59. I guess Al Franken is a mindless partisan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986995

[cali]

87. I'll go with my own Senator, thank you very much. And Bernie thinks it's deplorable.

[piratefish08]

172. as will I - I stand with Bernie on this one.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. very well said!

[Major Hogwash]

62. What the hell, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this afternoon or something?

Like this shit hasn't been going on for your whole frickin' life already!!
Fuck, talk about a wake-up call.
You act like you have been in a coma for the last 60 years and just woke up!
The NSA was created clear back in 1952!!

Did you think they are just going to close up shop because YOU just heard about them??

[reusrename]

69. Damn, you missed the whole barn.

The technology only came into being during the last decade or so.

Computer analysis of social networks is new science and folks should be concerned.

This subject is far more serious than the nuclear detente that was going on 60 years ago.

[Ishoutandscream2]

152. She does every damn day, Major

The most unpleasant and rudest person on DU. And yet, she has a fan club here. I guess there are some who like bullies.

[blackspade]

163. that was uncalled for

[Ishoutandscream2]

164. Really? You like the way she talks down to people?

And insults them? She's a bully, plain and simple.

[blackspade]

167. Other that the use of 'honey'....

over which treestar called cali out on, I haven't seen anything bullying in this tread.

I was responding to your insults.

I think that we all have to accept that there is going be a curtain amount of courseness on DU, something that I have not been innocent of.
But, one has to accept that they might be occasionally be called out on it as well.

That was all I meant by the comment.
You obviously don't agree with cali, which is totally fine. I have no issue with that even though I personally agree with cali's post.
That is what DU's free flow of opinions is all about.

[blkmusclmachine]

63. We're all Germans now.

[rhett o rick]

70. "And we thought we were free". nm

[OnyxCollie]

137. I think we're turning Japanese.

Internment, that is.

[grantcart]

65. I am afraid that I cannot agree.

I believe that it exceeds that amount by 30%.


One of the problems with the lack of transparency is that there is little critical thinking about the resources spent and the results gained.


We continue to purchase tanks to fight a WWII style battle. The Pentagon fights this because their public budget is under scrutiny and they want to use the money in less wasteful areas, or even reduce expenditures.


When it comes to the intelligence budget there is no counter critic to question the efficacy of current expenditures. I would not be surprised that the PRISM operation had some use years ago but has had little benefit in the past several years as Al Queda adapts quickly to known moves by the government.

[reusrename]

113. It has very little to do with Al Queda and much more to do with OWS.

First you have to identify who the real insurgents are, as opposed to the astroturffed version.

Come on, get with the program, you're usually smarter than this.

step 1) google the keywords: thesis insurgent and social network

step 2) review a few of the basic principles involved in this new branch of social science

step 3) ponder the NYC police (working with Homeland Security) to suppress OWS

step 3) figure out a way to organize folks in spite of this new science of disrupting social networks

I am convinced that the only way to resist becoming a fascist state at this point is to organize political opposition. But that's the whole problem. The science is being used by actual fascists to prevent folks from organizing any opposition to their actions. This is how the criminals are getting away everything.

[libdude]

71. When I voted

for my President, Senators or Representative, I did not grant them by my vote the authority to violate or infringe on my Constitutional Rights, nor did I expect them to violate the rights of others. If any violated or infringed on any Constitutional Rights, they have in my opinion violated their oath of office and broke faith with what binds us together as a people, and therefore should resign or be impeached. Their is no small infringement just as their is no small lie, as someone once said, a half truth is not the whole truth therefore it is an untruth. Infidelity is infidelity no matter the reason.

[Le Taz Hot]

110. Good post, libdude.

It should be a separate OP.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. obviously - but the public has been so deeply indoctrinated to be afraid of its own Shadow - it

wouldn't take much more to convince them that nuking Disney World on a Sunday afternoon was a necessary evil - to say nothing of keeping records of phone calls and E-mails and social network postings. Don't expect things to get much better. The public has been so convinced that 69% of Democrats now support it - more Democrats than Republicans by the way.

Fully 69 percent of Democrats say terrorism investigations should be the government’s main concern, not privacy, an 18-percentage-point jump from early January 2006, when the NSA activity under the Bush administration was first reported. Compared with that time, Republicans’ focus on privacy has jumped 22 points.

The reversal is even more dramatic on the NSA’s practices. In early 2006, just 37 percent of Democrats found the NSA’s activities acceptable; now nearly twice that number — 64 percent — say the use of telephone records is okay. By contrast, Republicans slumped from 75 percent acceptable to 52 percent today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

[upi402]

78. Republicans shifted because they're racist

With a white President they loved it.
Shameful.

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. we know that - but what is the Democrats excuse for such a dramatic change in position?

at least when Bush was President - Democrats believed in the Constitution

[timdog44]

73. cali

I hope you are not one of the 11 now who have me on ignore. I guess I am getting badder. I feel sorry for them as I think I have something to offer. Anyway.

I agree that 16 major national security agencies is way overboard. The $80 billion you talk about is minor in comparison to what we spend on national defense via military and the pentagon. So I am not so outraged by that. What pisses me off is that non of these so called security agencies works together and many are private and not under the aegis of any agency to oversee them.

And abuses are abundant and that is because they are "illegally" private. National security in this day and age is a necessity. I wish I had the answer on how to oversee all this. Supposedly we elect people to do that. Obviously that does not work, all the time. Every manufactured crisis calls for another spy thingy to happen. I think our reps are more afraid than we are. And maybe, to some extent, correct. I do not know. I am not privy to their privy. There are things we should not know. That may sound naive or giving in but I truly believe that.

The simple answer is to ban all intelligence gathering. I can not live with that.

[timdog44]

75. Somewhat pertinent.

See the comments by Al Franken. Can you not trust him?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986995

This was meant to be a response cali and not to myself. Forgive my ignorance on how to do this sometiimes.

[RainDog]

81. I don't have you on ignore

but I have been hiding threads and putting people on ignore big time the last couple of days.

the reason for this is because I don't want to start to hate the party I have voted with my entire voting life. But to see the level of disgusting bullshit put up here on DU about this issue... it's just too much.

it's also, however, very educational until you get so sick of it you can't take it anymore.

It makes the party look bad.

[timdog44]

100. Thanks RainDog.

Maybe we are related, being timdog44 here.

I guess I can understand not wanting to deal with some of the treads. I think, am not sure, that I do not come down very popularly on this issue. I have said that I think a level of surveillance is necessary, and people jump to the conclusion that I think everything is OK. What cali said is there are too many agencies doing this, and that we have "private companies" (I suppose along the lines of the former Blackwater and Haliburton) doing it and making a mint doing it, without any supervision and with immunity up the ole _____.

I don't disagree with her totally. I think in the big picture that $80 billion is not a lot of money, as compared to defense/pentagon budet monies, is not much to spend on surveillance if done with more discretion and sharing among the "spy" community so duplication is not done and one hand knows what the other is doing. And it should all be absolutely "government" agencies, only fewer and better.

And as far as making the party look bad, there are certainly some gray cells lacking in some of the respondents. But thanks.

And, oh, I started a thread in GD addressing my thoughts on the ignore button. It may be breaking the rules, but I wanted to get it off my chest. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987891 Funny, no one has replied. Oh well. Nice chatting with you.

[RainDog]

148. Thanks to you, timdog44

I'm glad we could have an exchange that's civil.

I see there is more than one issue in all this and we really don't know enough to know what's what.

But I also know that, once Americans consent to give up protections, they rarely ever get those protections back.

While there are genuine national security concerns, they aren't just from the view of others who would attack from outside this nation. Those whose job it is to protect the nation are, of course, going to have a pov that they need every option available.

We have a history of responding to threats in ways that violate the civil rights of others, tho, as well (Japanese detention in WWII, for example.)

I think it's good to agree that there are valid concerns from various povs on this issue.

[upi402]

77. yes, and it is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ugh

[KoKo]

79. I love Grits..they ain't Dumb...but BLAND... GOOD POST! K&R

Maybe that's your point.

[Bucky]

117. Damn you.

Grits are good for you and grits are pure morning goodness. Grits are life itself. Themself. Themselves. Whatever. The point is, if your puny tastebuds can't handle the understated awesomeness that is grits. Are grits. Then don't take it out on the NSA or you'll end up on their watch list. Terrorist list. 2010 Census report. Whatever.

[Harmony Blue]

89. It seems to me that older DU members are defending the indefensible

the jig is up and we need to shift our energy in a new direction for our country.

[otohara]

105. And thanks to the many youngsters who didn't vote in 2010

Ushering in the tea baggers to make our lives a living hell I hope they learned a lesson...midterms matter a lot. Start by voting every two years, special elections, not just the general.

[Le Taz Hot]

111. I'm an "older member of DU"

in more than one way and I'm not defending any of this. You're assessment is COMPLETELY wrong. Most of the blind partisans are newbies, comparatively speaking, of course

[bhikkhu]

90. Or, you have to be waiting for evidence of abuse of powers

that's what has always made things easier for me (and I sleep soundly too). I like to see evidence. There is, of course, a long history of abuse of powers, and one annoying thing is that we often don't find out for 40 years or so...

But even lacking evidence of abuse, assuming abuse just renders one a bit blustery and foolish about - well, we're not quite sure, but it must be something!

[liberal_at_heart]

91. Sometimes it takes 50 years for us to learn about the abuses the government commits.

Another handy little trick they have up their sleeve.

[cali]

92. no it's not blustery or foolish. It's common sense and a knowledge of history, honey.

[bhikkhu]

94. You probably are right

but I still like to see evidence.

I do wish the RW hadn't so spoiled "common sense". They've used the term so consistently to brand their nonsensical versions of history and culture and to beat down reasonable conversation that it kind of puts me off lately.

[Le Taz Hot]

112. J. Edgar Hoover

was dead and buried before the public learned of his gross abuses of power. After his death the American people swore no one person would ever have that kind of power again. Now it's several agencies which means it's much harder to a) detect and b) stop.

[Uncle Joe]

93. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Kablooie]

99. You could also be someone who expects to become rich from the abuse of national security.

And therefore be shocked, shocked that all this is coming out.

[juajen]

104. Yep, that horse left the barn a long time ago, and Donovan was not

the beginning. Someone's throwing out a red herring. Surely this outrage will take down the democrats. They're coming after Hill for sure. Gotta keep that Military Industrial Complex going strong. From the brilliant bard, "All the World"s a Stage." etc.

I know that we have guilty parties across the political spectrum, and this outrage is just what the doctor ordered. We just gotta keep choosing our best crooks, and eventually maybe the bad asses will disappear.

[ReRe]

107. K and R

Absolutely. It beats the heck out of me. It has to be that they are young and haven't read and lived through as much as we have? Seems like the more we try to understand them and explain things, the more belligerent they become. You might get away with blind devotion if it's a loved one or a friend you've known all your life. But, when it's a political leader? Hells Bells, my mind goes right back to the 1930's "over there." Thanks for the OP, cali.

[nradisic]

108. Amen

Good stuff Cali...

[piratefish08]

114. it's okay when Pres. Obama does it. not Bush though - because he was evil. I read it on the DU.

[warrant46]

165. LOL

[treestar]

115. That would apply to any bureaucracy

The welfare bureaucracy, the EEOC, OSHA.

And the corruption is not all there is. There are still the majority who do their jobs honestly.

You have to be libertarian to be so sure that government is mostly evil.

[cali]

120. Those in, for instance, the welfare bureaucracy, don't have the kind of power

lack of oversight or potential for abuse that those in the spy agencies have.

And I don't believe gov't is mostly evil. and sorry, honey, but I'm not a libertarian.

Weak, desperate response.

[treestar]

121. Quit calling me honey

Do you realize what that says about your ability to debate?

Welfare bureaucracy could arguably have power of life or death over people, denial of benefits could lead to someone starving.

Every bureaucracy has power. In fact arguably the NSA is least likely to affect most people. They may have my phone calls, but my life goes on the same. If OSHA slips up, someone could end up getting maimed or killed - some ordinary person.

The OP us thus fail, and you should admit you posted it without thinking through the big hole in the logic.

[cali]

123. OK. and my ability to debate is certainly far better than yours. debate requires some

ability to use critical thinking skills. No evidence in YOUR arguments that you do any such thing.

It's absolutely silly to claim that those in the welfare bureaucracy have the same power to potentially abuse the system as those in the spy agencies. I already explained to you in simple terms why this is so. Start with oversight.

That's so basic. You fail- as always.

You employ no logic and you steadfastly ignore facts and cling to your adulation of the President. It's sad, pathetic.

[treestar]

126. I can debate far better than you can

My claims were rational. I employ logic. I have no adulation of the President, I simply think he makes sense, knows what he is talking about, and is a lot smarter than critics like Greenwald who just want to stir up shit and use him as a scapegoat. He has critical thinking skills, which is why he can handle a lot more than you and Greenwald ever could.

[WovenGems]

124. Capabilities

The system isn't proactive so your pot selling operation is safe. However, if you're using the funds to support the Taliban and the ops get wind of it then they can query the system. But the system can't give a heads up because we haven't got our two digit computing to that point yet and may never do so.

[timdog44]

125. I have a question.

If the surveillance system in the USA is so all encompassing and can pin point all your phone calls, find you anywhere - why the hell cn't they find Andrew Snowden? Where's Snowden?

[WovenGems]

127. It can't find

those who wish not to be found. Use cash and the U.S. Mail and this system is blind.

[rhett o rick]

129. It would be very hard to live "off the grid" today unless you had a lot of cash buried somewhere. nm

[timdog44]

134. And I don't know how true this is

but I see a post on DU that he has asked for asylum in Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually it was the Russians who said they would accept him. But still.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014505919

[rhett o rick]

130. Just because you dont know where he is doesnt mean the govment doesnt know.

They may want to "handle" his case different than Pfc Manning who is turning into a martyr.

[timdog44]

138. You are quite right

about that. I do not think this guy thought things through very well. I stiil can not believe the government gave such a high security clearance to such a lowly "spy".

I would have thought they would have learned their lesson with Manning,irregardless of whether you believe Manning correct or not.

The other thing I do not understand is if there are so many spy agencies, is that more of this does not happen.

[rhett o rick]

140. I think the problem is that technology is advancing faster than we can control.

I also think that when people out-source they think their responsibility is reduced.

[timdog44]

142. I was just thinking that and

going to post basically the same thing. Technology has outraced the law. And the people we have elected to take care of that for big part are a bunch of old fart white men to who the internet is a series of tubes, etc. If you don't understand the technology you should not be in a position to legislate on it.

On a much smaller scale, I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher and is so computer and internet illiterate it is almost abuse.

[Babel_17]

132. Well, us little people that need loans, have to allow personal intrusion when applying for jobs

We "little people", to quote Blade Runner, are going to be kept in line by the knowledge that if we join any protests or nationwide strikes the government can easily know all about it.

Look at what protesting Bush was like. Remember the free speech zones?

Government will use its tools to preserve the prosperity and tranquility of those it serves best.

Good luck trying to protest some future Republican President if we're at war and he/she has a power mad administration. The activists amongst us will be battling a shitstorm of evidence that could imply anything. And that will be enough.

[CanonRay]

133. The Nazis had a "court system" too.

It made things nice and legal. It was a meaningless rubber stamp for what the government wanted to have done. Gee, just like our FISA court.

[stevenleser]

136. FISA approve almost all because appeals courts have already ruled the President can do this.

If you are going to criticize a court for doing something, shouldn't you know a little about the constitutionality of it?

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)
decided: August 8, 1984.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ANDREW DUGGAN, EAMON MEEHAN, GABRIEL MEGAHEY, AND COLM MEEHAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

.
.
.

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

[cali]

147. I'm quite aware of that

I haven't disputed the legality of FISA, though I find how they operate alarming.

The constitutionality is not what I'm disputing. I do think that it's worth remembering that many things have been considered constitutional via SC rulings for decades only to be reversed and later reviled.

You do know that, right?

[Catherina]

141. I already rec'd this but it needs a double rec

after some of the desperate bafflegab that's getting posted here.

[cali]

145. thanks

the diversionary crap that's so desperately being posted incessantly, is all the more depressing being that it's posted here.

[Catherina]

170. I can't dwell on how depressing it is

Seeing it posted here with such enthusiasm is disturbing me too but I'm grateful it's not working. It's always a pleasure to support your astute posts.

[AnnieK401]

150. Completely agree that these agencies are abusing their power. But are you saying

that we should just put up with it or get rid of the agencies that are suppose to keep us safe or some other option.

[cali]

153. I guess the only sort of solution I see at this point is far greater congressional oversight

I also think that these agencies, or at least some of them, are simply too big.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

154. Outsourced even!

These Privatized contractors are making 3 times more than a government employee would make!

[pansypoo53219]

159. no outrage in 2006 w/ NO WARRANT! i call BS on the gnews media.

[Are_grits_groceries]

166. Grits are not dumb.

Hominy maybe but not grits!

[kelliekat44]

168. And your point? What has actually happened to you as a result? Local police abuse their power ever

day on sometimes innocent citizens. I find no equal outrage from the gallery. What's up with that?

[cali]

169. are you kidding? do a freakin' search and you'll quickly find a lot of outrage over police

abuse of power.

And the point sure as shit isn't what's happened to me personally. duh.

[William769]

171. Kick & recommended.