Hero or devil's spawn, I don't give a shit. It's massive expansion of surveillance

[cali]

and all it entails that concerns me. I'm not going to get caught up in the personalities of this when it's not what's important. Certain people at DU are working their tails off to deflect from the issue and make it all about Snowden.

It is not.

[MindPilot]

1. And I don't give a shit how legal and constitutional it is.

It is flat-out fucking WRONG!

[DissidentVoice]

64. Quite well said.

It may be "legal" but it sure as hell isn't CONSTITUTIONAL.

[MindPilot]

70. Thank you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. But I guess committing the crime of treason doesn't matter to you

[ForeignandDomestic]

85. Tssk..

When the likes of Peter King and Lindsey Graham are leading the chorus on the treasonous claim I'm going to reserve my judgement on that. I know the interest those two shills are working for and it isn't on behalf of the American people.

[lark]

108. Did you consider Daniel Ellsberg to be a traitor?

There are some things that are bigger than a broad and technical reading of the law, like rights of privacy. Guess you are OK with drones and all the details of your phone calls, texts and emails being reviewed by the government?

[rtracey]

110. I am

Are you blind? your privacy? Have you ever bought something with a credit card, or something online?... do you have cable tv, internet phone.... You internet provider know what websites you view, your phone company know who you call, your online store knows your credit card number, netflix knows what movies you watch, facebook something and look at the right side of the page ....your stuff. every go to a webpage, then go to another and see advertising for the previous page? yes you have. Ever get shitty phone calls at dinner, why are they calling you, because you may need something, you have looked it up and then you phone number is in a database...and you want to drop the hammer on the government......? this is 2013 and if I need to give up a little freedom for safety and peace of mind, so be it.. I'm not running from anybody, I'm not a criminal, I have a good irish name, ...let them look.......any "whistle-blower who steals and runs to the border instead of staying and confronting their accusers is a thief, and a criminal, not a hero

[ljm2002]

111. "I'm not a criminal"...

...until the government decides you are one.

There are plenty of perfectly legal groups that one can associate with and still end up on a watch list. At present, OWS is the canonical example of this. Apart from their occupations, they have held demonstrations and the like that were 100% peaceful and 100% legal and constitutional per the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And yet if you are known to be associated with them you are considered potentially subversive or worse. So maybe you're not a fan of OWS, still, if you have any interest in actively engaging in our political discourse, you better watch your back. Some things are acceptable to say and some things aren't -- and it is not all about whether you threaten violence. Anything, anything that threatens the status quo is taken as a threat.

Finally, privacy vis a vis companies is different than privacy vis a vis the government. For one thing, any one business has access to their own data, not all data. Whereas the government is gaining more and more access to consolidated data. For another thing, a company can't send someone to your house to have you arrested. The government can.

I don't think you have thought this through.

[lark]

122. I am not OK with this

I am partially blind, but that has nothing to do with this, thank you very much. I know industry data mines all the time, but that's a big false equivalence. It's not used to prosecute or persecute anyone and what the government's doing is for that purpose. If you give up privacy for liberty you will end up with neither - to paraphrase an old wise saying. the governmenet isn't just tracking numbers, they are also keeping content as well. A few years ago it came out that the FBI was listening in on domestic only phone calls just for the purient value, nothing about national security. Do you think that isn't still going on? It's been leaked out from the security committee that the data mining is just the tip of the iceberg. I do not want the government to read my texts, emails or listen to my phone converstions.

[HardTimes99]

123. Don't have anything to hide, eh? - nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. Do you consider THIS guy to be a Daniel Ellsberg?

[avebury]

119. Aren't you jumping to conclusions without all the real facts?

Did he work for the Government?
Did he sign any documents (or was he presented with any documents) relating to official state secrets)?
Were the documents he released documents available as an employee for the company he worked for?
Did he sign any non-disclosure documents for his employer?
If he was never asked to sign any documents regarding state secrets, why did the US Government provide said documents to any company without covering its ass?

I am not the least bit concerned that he might have revealed that we spied on China because that just plain isn't real news. All countries spy on one another, even allies. What is far more relevant is the actions that our Government takes regarding to our citizens and if said actions are in fact constitutional. The Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites having no problem with what occurred during the Bush administration and having a hissyfit about what occurs during the Obama administration.

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. I can guarantee you he signed non-disclosure...

and that logic is flawwed ....if he revealed ANYTHING about that program....he committed treason...whether it is well known or not...he is NOT allowed to confirm anything....that is WHY he was given Top Secret Clearance. He had to sign Public Trust documents every year....guarantee you that.

[MineralMan]

2. Oh, it's going to be mostly about Snowden over the next few

days. Count on it. It may also be about Glenn Greenwald, who has not been heard from since yesterday.

It may be about other things, too. We'll see.

[cali]

4. It hasn't been mostly about him for the past few days and I don't think

I'm not the only person who realizes that the issues are more important than the personalities.

[MineralMan]

8. No, of course you're not the only person.

However, all parties will be interested in diverting attention from those issues.

[reformist2]

6. If the Establishment has its way. They'll have to start doing better with their spin...

[Junkdrawer]

7. Has anyone explained how he got the FISC docs?

[MineralMan]

12. Nope. Clearly, they were briefing documents.

They weren't really for internal use, but for briefing people with only a modest need to know. At least the stuff I saw was like that. How deeply Snowden was able to dig isn't clear.

[Maedhros]

59. Some other important questions:

Why are top secret (?) details of the United States' cyber espionage campaign vs. China made available to low level employees of Booz Allen?

What is the extent of the intermingling of government and corporate agencies?

Is that intermingling a good thing?

[paleotn]

66. Simple answers....

...(1) database admins usually need extraordinary access rights simply to do their jobs. That's been a thorn in my arse from a financial controls perspective for many years.


(2) You can't tell where the government ends and the contractors begin. Seriously. After a couple decades or more of privatization, government contractors of various sorts are so embedded in every segment of the US government that it can no longer function without them.

(3) That's a negative.

[YoungDemCA]

67. Yes, it's all about the individual personalities, and has nothing to do with the institutions...

Please.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. It took Snowden to get Obama to talk about debating the issue.

What comes of that debate depends on the issue not becoming about Snowden, but what he revealed.

[Life Long Dem]

31. It hasn't been debated because it's all legal

It may not be right for the NSA to have the same data as the phone company, but it is legal. What Snowden may have uncovered is a debate of how people feel about NSA having this legal data opposed to the phone company - whether Snowden knows this or not, and I don't think he does. More like Greenwald is leading this discussion. But the law comes down to what the people expect of their privacy in having this data possessed by the NSA. And people are alright with the phone company having this data.

[JDPriestly]

48. "all legal"? Famous last words.

Slavery was legal.

Discrimination was legal.

Being "legal" doesn't mean that much.

I doubt that this vast program is constitutional. It chills our exercise of fundamental rights too much. We have the right to think outrageous thoughts -- and to express them. The press has an absolute right. At least that is what Thomas Jefferson thought. He said that the press should not be limited, that it should be absolutely free. I agree with him.

[Enthusiast]

86. The law is an ass?

Someone said...

[snappyturtle]

50. You might want to give the link below a listen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017124906

TYT address the issue of legality. Seems it may not have been as legal as we have been
led to bellieve.

[Life Long Dem]

58. Merkley seems to skip over this case law

Smith v. Maryland.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

This ruling said that by "giving" data (such as phone numbers) to a "third party" (such as a phone company) you had given up any expectation of privacy in that data...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/10020823374/real-scandal-not-that-nsa-broke-law-vast-spying-that-it-probably-didnt.shtml

[Maedhros]

62. Then we need a full and transparent investigation

of these activities to determine just how legal or illegal they may be.

[Life Long Dem]

65. +1

The people already allow the storing of numbers with the phone company. Now debate whether they approve of NSA storing these same numbers for later use in an investigation - where a warrant is necessary.

[snappyturtle]

71. I do not give the phone company the right to hand over my number to NSA.

They can store it for billing purposess with the assumption on my part that I won't become part of a dragnet originating from them.

It doesn't make sense to me or cost effective for NSA to store millions of numbers that 'might' be needed in the future. Let them get a warrant for the calling records of the suspect and THEN if my number comes up, so be it.

Why would a terrorist use a traceable phone in the first place which spawns another question: why is NSA really storing my number?

[Life Long Dem]

72. Part of it is so they will have the numbers later on

They store the numbers for 5 years so they can have a number to track when they investigate the foreign suspect. If the numbers were not stored on their servers the phone company would delete them when NSA may need them.

[snappyturtle]

74. So what does the NSA do after 5 years? Start all over again?

Can't the gov't enact 'something' to force the telecommunication companies to store the numbers?
Of course the contractors would lose out then.

Edit: If the phone companies did the storing, I'm sure some quid pro quo could be worked out.

[Life Long Dem]

75. No reason for Snowden to expose all this like he did

However it can be done. On NSA's servers or the phone companies servers. In the mean time lets listen to Snowden threaten to release more damaging documents exposing the NSA's activities in preventing terrorism.

[snappyturtle]

81. I'm going to be very honest. I have a greater fear of the misuse of

secretly held information and what it can do to reporters, judges, congresscritters as well as ordinary citizens than I do of terrorists. Just my most humble opinion.

We'll learn more as this story unfolds and hopefully be in better positions to form conclusions.

I'm so happy that we kept our back and forth civil...thanks! Nice meeting you Life Long Dem.

[Maedhros]

84. Now that the White House has confirmed the program

exactly HOW it came to be known to the public is irrelevant - issues have been raised and need to be addressed.

[ljm2002]

113. One point that people seem to be missing...

...is the aggregation of data that the government can do.

My phone company has access to its own phone records. It does not have access to the phone records of other phone companies.

The NSA, though, apparently has access to all phone records. That is a very big difference. For example, if I call out to someone who is with a different service, then my phone company can track the graph from me to them, but it cannot extend that graph from them to whoever else they may have called right after they spoke to me. But the NSA can.

Even if the data is not being misused now (Ha!), there is a 100% probability that it will be misused in the future, especially as the databank grows.

[Life Long Dem]

114. Dots in a box

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers was saying today that the phone numbers the NSA have are like dots in a box. Where they are just numbers with no names attached to them. And these numbers once they have been traced to a phone number are then handed over to the FBI for investigation.

[ljm2002]

116. "just numbers with no names attached to them"...

...c'mon. ANYONE can get a backtrace on a number these days. If Mike Rogers doesn't know that, then his presence on the Intelligence Committee is laughable.

[Life Long Dem]

117. We all know this

But it's said they are only interested in numbers to hand over. It doesn't sound right but that's what they are saying. Senator Diane Feinstein was just saying pretty much the same thing.

[ljm2002]

118. DiFi is one of the least trustworthy people on this issue, IMO...

...she is a real MIC lackey.

Anyway, what was being described is how it is SUPPOSED TO work. Ha. Ha. Ha.

"In theory, theory and reality are the same; in reality, theory and reality are different."

[SlimJimmy]

101. We are not talking about pen registers when e-mails and other internet data is held.

That is going to be the next shoe to drop.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. If it was all legal, no one would have lied to Congress under oath and denied such spying.

If it was all legal, no one would have risked being prosecuted for perjury. (Of course, with Holder, the risk of prosecution is very small unless a person is a whistle-blower or a marijuana seller.)

[Life Long Dem]

63. I don't see Clapper as commiting perjury

Just misunderstood.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. It is a felony to mislead Congress. Answering in the "least untruthful manner" is still untruthful.

When Secord misled Congress, he received probation although he could have received a five-year sentence.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-25/news/mn-959_1_misleading-congress-iran-contra

With respect to Clapper:

So you don't see Clapper as committing perjury.

Excuse me, but so what?

[Life Long Dem]

82. Good luck collecting a guilty verdict on this

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. I don't have to collect a guilty verdict on this.

[SlimJimmy]

102. Misunderstood? I don't see that in this exchange. He outright lied about what he knew.

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Oregon Republican Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper at the March 12 hearing.

"No, sir," Clapper responded.

"It does not?" Wyden pressed.

Clapper recanted and said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect -- but not wittingly."

[Life Long Dem]

104. I don't believe Clapper "knowingly" made a false statement

Legally speaking, perjury is hard to prove, because it’s a highly technical offense. As a matter of federal law, a witness commits perjury if he knowingly makes a false material statement under oath. Clapper was under oath, his statement was false, and it was material to a legitimate governmental investigation. (The materiality requirement is intended to eliminate so-called “perjury traps,” in which a witness is asked a question for no other reason than to try to get him to perjure himself.)

He won't be found guilty of perjury because...

Clapper has already deployed what could be called the “it depends on what the meaning of ‘collect’ is” defense.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_away_with_perjury/

Your post refers to Clappers misunderstood wording of "collect". There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect...

[SlimJimmy]

105. He told a lie, an obvious one. That he might wiggle out of a perjury charge

by parsing the definition of "collect" is not the point. If he would lie about collecting data on Americans, he would also lie about other issues. And that goes for General Alexander as well. I think too many here have this blind faith in the intel community that is woefully misplaced.

[rhett o rick]

92. On what basis are you declaring the data as "legal"? You dont even know what they are doing

other than the little that has been revealed. Yet you are quick to declare their actions "legal". Some are trying to paint Snowden and Greenwald as total idiots, not realizing whether or not the data they have is "legal" or not. I doubt that's the case.

"And people are alright with the phone company having this data." You say that like you know what data the NSA has. You dont know that. And the people dont know what data the phone company has, so how are we alright with that?

We need to know what kind of data the NSA has asked the phone companies to give them. And shame on those that want to look the other way and pretend this never happened.

Transparency is essential for Democracy. Secrecy is essential for authoritarian rule.

[Life Long Dem]

96. Just because I point out something is legal,

doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't see more transparency. We all heard and know what Snowden has released. And what Snowden has released has been shown to be legal. Section 215 and FISA all allow this.

And I don't attack Snowden or Greenwald. I don't call Snowden a traitor. I do say he committed a crime in stealing classified material. I do say we knew about this stuff since 2006, but I don't say we shouldn't have a debate on this.

On what basis are you declaring the data as "legal"?

[premium]

5. +1000.

Thank you cali.

[geek tragedy]

10. derp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022978510

As we type away, there are lots of people deperately trying to find dirt on Snowden
and manufacturing it and embroidering it. Some are in the Government. Some are at think tanks and some are right here at DU.

I'm not big on using the word hero, but this guy appears to me, at least initially, to be a thoughtful, smart and courageous guy.

Translation: the guy's character is worth discussing and defending and praising, until he reveals himself to be a narcissistic traitor

[Aerows]

16. Which judging by your posts

you already deemed him such from the get go, which doesn't exactly reflect a lack of bias.

[geek tragedy]

18. Which posts are those? nt

[Aerows]

21. Every one you've made on the subject

You've repeatedly branded him a traitor, a liar and now we have a narcissist. Which collection would you like for me to pull up, because I will gladly provide links. I really don't care to justify my statements to you personally, but my integrity demands that I will, if you like.

And I have no doubt that 15 other posters know exactly what I'm talking about, too. Your posts speak for themselves.

[geek tragedy]

22. Pull the ones up where I called him a 'traitor' before the revelations of today.

Your apology in advance is accepted.

[Aerows]

24. Now we are qualifying our posts beforehand?

Does that mean you know that's what you said? I think I'll pass. I have better things to do with my time than prove something to a person that already knows I'm right. LOL.

[geek tragedy]

26. No, I'm stating as a fact you've been busted making shit up, and now you're refusing

to even attempt to back up your claim that I've been trashing him as a traitor and a liar and a narcissist.

You got nothing, and now you're scampering off rather than apologize like an adult.

you said you would "gladly provide links"

Provide them, or you're a liar.

[Aerows]

28. Uh, no,

you are making shit up and got busted, and now you are mad about it. You admitted as much.

[geek tragedy]

29. you said you would "gladly provide links"

mere minutes later, you refused to provide links.

Very Darrel Issa of you.

[Aerows]

32. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014507127 dated before the revalation at 1:18 pm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014505022#post35 Headed to Venezuela (two days ago)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983957#op On Monday.

[geek tragedy]

35. the derp is strong with you

The first link IS the revelation if you bothered to read what I posted.

The second link--how is stating he'd be wise to fly to Venezuela a smear?

Third: I am "geek tragedy" not "cali democrat"

[Aerows]

38. Oh well

I guess because I linked to the OP when you were the first responder makes the derp strong with me. I'll just accept that and ignore that you were already plotting ways for him to avoid getting captured on Monday.

You are clearly in charge of who is in the derp department if you believe that one.

[geek tragedy]

42. peace, nt

[Aerows]

33. If you need more, I'll provide them

I think the intent is pretty clear from just that handful.

[geek tragedy]

37. that was a pretty pitiful selection from you.

The only one that was before the revelations that he was blabbing about our Chinese hacking was that I said he'd be smart to fly to Venezuela.

You know who also said something similar?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/us/julian-assange-interview

[Aerows]

39. Oh, I forgot

We hate Julian Assange, too.

[geek tragedy]

41. Just how was I smearing the guy for suggesting he fly to Venezuela?

Venezuela has much better freedom of speech than China and is a democracy.

[cali]

17. your translation would be off and really my assessment was a cautious one

at least initially to a thoughtful, smart and courageous guy is hardly calling him a hero. furthermore, I've said repeatedly over the last few days that this in not about Snowden but the issue of massive overarching surveillance. It's right here on DU.

So no, you are wrong. now return to your blind support for the surveillance state and the President.

[geek tragedy]

19. Blind support for the surveillance state=you lying about my position. nt

[cali]

23. hardly. touchy aren't you?

[geek tragedy]

25. I'm touchy when people lie about me.

For your edification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022991146

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2983974

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2991334

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2990668

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2984649

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983958

[Fantastic Anarchist]

45. None of those links indicate that you are not defending the NSA program.

In most of them, it seems you are concerned with corporate control of information (to which I agree with your concern, in fact, I'm pretty pissed). But those links indicate that you are also absolving the government intrusion into our civil liberties by saying, "Look what's happening here!"

[geek tragedy]

47. the accusation was:

blind support for the surveillance state and the President

The surveillance state depends on corporate control and ownership of users' personal data. This program wouldn't work but for the fact 'ownership' of that data is concentrated in the hands of a small number of massive corporations.

Give individuals more ownership and control over their own data if you want to defeat the invasiveness of the surveillance state.

[JDPriestly]

49. So what if he is a narcissist. He isn't a traitor if he tells the truth

to the American people about the excesses of our government.

He is not helping the enemy. He is helping us. If an enemy also benefits, the saving grace is that we are helped and better informed. We cannot claim to have a democracy if we don't vote and participate with full knowledge of the truth.

[geek tragedy]

53. I would have agreed before today.

The narcissist thing is almost to be expected.

But, when he starts blabbing stuff to the Chinese in order to ingratiate himself to their regime, he's stepped over a line.

[Whisp]

54. ++++++++haha! ++++++++

sorry, it's probably inappropriate to laugh THIS HARD, but MY GAWD, what a gem of a find!

sweet jeebus, it's been a really tough couple days here but this is like a long cool umbrella drink after slogging around in the trenches.


BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my little input in post 36 is so boring, compared.

[paleotn]

68. Argue for or against...

..what was revealed, not the character of the messenger. He or she could be tea bagging, psycho, nut job on vast amounts of steroids. I don't care. What MATTERS is what was released, the accuracy of it, and whether or not it's good or bad for the country. Everything else, including yours or my opinions of Snowden's character are irrelevant bull shit.

[geek tragedy]

69. The problem is we don't know what was revealed.

We've seen a few presentations, but we shouldn't accept everything this guy says as true.

[Maedhros]

109. Nobody in the government is denying it.

They are just telling us it's good.

[redgreenandblue]

89. Lets see: Spying on China is ok, but revealing said spying is treason.

Do you think spying is ok or not?

[geek tragedy]

90. Yes, spying on other countries is perfectly okay. nt

[redgreenandblue]

93. So then Snowden did nothing wrong if he did indeed spy on the USA for China.

Either spying on allies is wrong or it isn't.

[geek tragedy]

94. Spying on behalf of one's own country against a foreign power is okay.

Spying against one's own country on behalf of a foreign power is not okay.

He can share a cell with Jonathan Pollard.

[redgreenandblue]

95. Under customary international law all spies are treated equal.

If you are caught spying you get treated as a common criminal, regardless on whose behalf you were spying. Selling secrets to a state is treated as a crime committed by an individual on his or her own behalf. Thus, if Snowden revealed the fact that someone was spying on China, then by definition the people who were doing the spying were simply private citizens committing crimes against China and revealing this is whistle blowing.

[Autumn]

11. rec rec rec

and another rec.

[avaistheone1]

13. I think it is only about Snowden in the sense that unless people like him come forward we have no

idea about how many of our rights and liberties are being taken away.

And if we don't recognize and support people like Snowden even fewer people will speak out in the future.
Look at this administration dim record in support of whistle-blowers. It is pathetic.

[Aerows]

14. It isn't right

That is clear as a bell. Some folks want to detract from the issue and make it about personalities.

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. When they can't argue facts, and people aren't buying the legalization of crime,

what else do the authoritarians and cultists have?

[BlueCheese]

20. I'm willing to stipulate he's the Worst Person In the World.

If it gets us off this ridiculous fixation on his personal life and lets us discuss the real issue at hand, which is the disclosure of a massive government surveillance program on ordinary Americans.

[dgibby]

55. BINGO! n/t

[Little Star]

27. Yep.

[woo me with science]

30. Rec.

[bowens43]

34. exactly, who exposed it , what their motivation was has no bearing on the facts

I really don't care who or why, makes no difference. the bottom line is that its happening and Obama and his administration are the perpetrators.

[Whisp]

36. interesting.

[pnwmom]

40. You mean the expansion that took place in 2007?

Snowden's credibility IS an issue, because when he and Greenwald started all this, they were making claims that turned out not to be true -- like the US having direct access into Google's servers.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

43. Hero or Traitor?

Who's on first? Who's on second?

Yeah, making it about Snowden is a total red herring.

[BainsBane]

44. I agree

[Uncle Joe]

46. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

51. When thinking about our rights I now start to think about the ones we've lost.

[blkmusclmachine]

52. I'm not going to get caught up in the personalities of this when it's not what's important.

+1

Although the sock puppets may disagree.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. I agree, although some are very dedicated to trying to make it about persons and gossip

nt

[limpyhobbler]

57. Exactly. 1) mass surveillance is bad. 2) Even if it were ok we have a right to know about it.

The personalities of the individuals are totally irrelevant.

[warrprayer]

61. excellent post

thanks!

[leftstreet]

73. DURec

[backscatter712]

77. K&R. The McCarthyist howler monkeys want us screaming about Snowden, not about Google for Tyrants.nt

[DCBob]

78. There are two major questions/issues..

Is the surveillance legal and is Snowden legit?

These are both worthy discussions.

[zeeland]

79. 30,000 applications for warrants submitted to the FISA

courts, 99.7 approved. I want more information
This sounds like a rubber stamp court put in place to
pacify the public. These stats weren't available in
2001. The entire surveillance complex stinks to high
heaven.

[JoePhilly]

91. 33,900 in 33 years. About 1800 last year.

~1800 warrants approved by FISA last year.

You'd think a police state would be using its secret rubber stamp court a lot more than 1800 times a year.

[zeeland]

98. Can you tell me how many of those 33,900 applications

were approved since 2001?

The following article published in 2005 states 19,000 had been approved up to Dec. 2005.
Does that mean 15,000 have been approved since the beginning of 2006?

Or, if you have a link with details, I'd appreciate reading it.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/19/toobin.otsc/

[cali]

87. No. I so disagree.

what do you even mean by legit. As for legal, many things, historically, have been legal that were absolutely heinous.

[DCBob]

100. Ok I will revise the questions..

Is the surveillance legal, appropriate and necessary.

Is what Snowden did legal and did he fabricate any part of his story and what are his true motives?

[cstanleytech]

99. Long as warrants were involved then yes its legal.

Constitutional?
But then that is why we have SCOTUS to decide if something is constitutional or not and yes sometimes SCOTUS makes rulings we consider wrong like Dred Scott v. Sandford but then that is also why we have the ability to amend the constitution itself.

[Triana]

88. Exactly. He & Greenwald are not the issue. At all.

Neither of them revealed much I didn't already know or suspect and I suspect the motivations and timing of their "revelations".

What this shit-stirring might do is effect a renewed national and international conversation about this OHS and "Patriot Act" crap, and significant change in these programs, either curtailing them or getting rid of them altogether, and maybe a return to more sane and reasonable surveillance parameters.

[MrScorpio]

97. Damn Skippy. nt

[SlimJimmy]

103. +1 exactly.

[lark]

106. Thank you again

from one who cares more about policy than personality.

[840high]

107. Amen.

[ljm2002]

112. Agree 100%. n/t

[Apophis]

115. Thank you.

K&r