Former Head of NSA Calls For Obama To Reject NSA Commission Recommendations

Lame duck President by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

He has no incentive to change anything. How it 'polls' is irrelevant. Someone with 2016 aspirations will need to make this their issue.

Re:Lame duck President by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

This clown was "lame" the day he stepped into office. His inability to actually take a stand and act on it, without wheeling and dealing for 2 years to get a "consensus" that compromises every facet of the original stand, has made him as effective as most vice presidents.
He's going to gather "expert testimony", "listen to the people", and by the time he gets around to "gathering consensus", he'll have changed nothing. Just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq, and just like that gods-awful mess of an excuse for enshrining bureaucrats with permanent legacies called Obamacare.
Re:Lame duck President by SJHillman · 2013-12-31 01:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

He still has incentive to keep his party in power. Politicans are loyal to themselves first, and their party and donors second. If it doesn't affect him, then he will do whatever is best for his party (not to be confused with his constituents) or his donors.
Re:Lame duck President by rmdingler · 2013-12-31 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I respectfully disagree.
Obama has the luxury of not seeking another term to guide whatever moral compass might remain within him.
He has an opportunity to make the reform of government surveillance an even greater legacy for his presidency than his ACA program.
Will he? Possibly not, but a newly elected POTUS will have even less incentive: any terrorist incident that occurs after a restructuring of the quasi-governmental snooping agencies will land at the feet of it's sponsor.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Lame duck President by Drathos · 2013-12-31 01:56 · Score: 3, Informative

"Lame Duck" in politics means they're on their way out. Either they've already lost an election or, in this case, in his final term and can't run again. It has nothing to do with what he's done or what his goals are/were. It basically means he can do as he pleases and doesn't need to worry about what the voters think anymore.

--
End of line..
Re:Lame duck President by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Politics is compliacted.
If Obama announced his intention to limit the powers of the NSA and impose more oversight from congress and the courts, then you can be confident that within a week there will be a republican-sponsored bill to remove what oversight they already have. It's a game of two sides: What one does, the other automatically opposes.
Re:Lame duck President by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-12-31 02:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

It took a very brave man, Edward R. Murrow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R_Murrow ), to have the courage to stand up Senator Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt. Obama just isn't the man to do that. But you really can't blame him for that. Not everyone can be a superhero, and that is what the country needs to restore the NSA to what it once was. Old Cold War NSA retirees probably cry themselves to sleep every night when they think about what the NSA has now become. The NSA used to be very discrete, effective and restrained. Now they have gone entirely overboard and out of control. They need a military style stand-down to take an assessment of themselves. Discretion is the better part of valor. I'd like to see an NSA that we could be proud of again . . . not afraid of.
Take a look at the Navy SEALS . . . the best fighting force in the world . . . but the US Army command does not send them off everywhere at a whim. And most of their operations we probably never hear about . . . because they are used very discretely and restrained. The NSA has expanded their surveillance to a point that the world is bound to discover what they are doing . . . because they just can't keep such massive operations secret any more.
If the Navy SEALS came under the command of the NSA, the NSA would deploy the SEALS everywhere to shoot up everyone. And instruct them to search through the dead bodies, to see if any of the dead were, in fact, terrorists.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Lame duck President by rmdingler · 2013-12-31 02:20 · Score: 1

What you say is true, but many of these edicts that allowed the present system to run unchecked pre-Snowden seem to have been mandated by federal agencies. Perhaps for reasons of deniability, much of this has escaped whatever cleansing light that Congressional oversight might provide.
Public discussion of privacy versus security is at least being discussed now, and there may be some momentum that can be drawn upon.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Lame duck President by spacepimp · 2013-12-31 02:52 · Score: 1

The NSA was corrupt then, and they created the FISA courts to resolve the abuses that were rampant. Now with the oversite of the FISA we see more of the same, just more political jockeying to codify their abuses as lawful and constitutional.
Re:Lame duck President by Mashiki · 2013-12-31 03:34 · Score: 1

I guess that's where we differ in politics between a border. And of course that's a brilliant idea, let's run with yours for a moment. So, Obama is going to do as he pleases, mess up the mid-term, and the following presidential election...just to do what he wants. Right-o...then again, I've seen that in Canada for the Conservative Party...killed them outright...look at the Kim Cambell fiasco.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Lame duck President by morari · 2013-12-31 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

All very true, unfortunately. Obama has been little more than a continuation of Dubya's reign. It's too bad the American people are so divided, so beholden to their preferred "team", or else they might notice how thoroughly they're being fucked regardless of which party is in power.
And here I was, sincerely hoping for a Socialist, non-Christian president. If only Fox news were correct now and then. :(

--
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Re:Lame duck President by poetmatt · 2013-12-31 03:52 · Score: 1

What makes you think it takes Chicago to be corrupt? The irony is the second he came in office he started trying to do good things on occasion and mostly tried to not do anything to change, well, anything. Which is a big problem considering some very bad things that have come along in his presidency and continued during it (such as our illegal war camps, fueling more wars, not repealing the patriot act, etc) - obamacare not actually being an illegal thing or entirely terrible concept, although allowing other politicians to have obamacare coverage for free being 100% BS.
Re:Lame duck President by rnturn · 2013-12-31 04:03 · Score: 1

Thanks for at least attempting to clarify the term though it seems that Obama bashers simply will not be denied their opportunity to, well, bash.
I wish I could remember the name of the politician (from Wisconsin, if memory serves) who showed up for work -- the day after he lost his bid for re-election and only had a couple of months left to serve -- wearing a duck costume with crutches. I recall the humorless press lambasting the guy for not having the correct amount of gravitas for the office. (Like that was going to allow him to get anything important accomplished in those few weeks.)

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Re:Lame duck President by nobodyman · 2013-12-31 04:11 · Score: 4, Funny

What one does, the other automatically opposes.
Which is why it's so easy to control today's GOP with reverse psychology.

Obama:Boy, it sure would be bad if you shut down the government.
GOP:HA! Lets shut down the government!
(time passes)...
GOP:Shit, our poll numbers!
Obama: Jesus this is too easy.
Re:Lame duck President by godless+dave · 2013-12-31 04:20 · Score: 2

I'd like to see an NSA that we could be proud of again
I'm not sure that ever existed. The NSA was happy to spy on Americans Nixon didn't like, just because he asked them to.

--
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Re:Lame duck President by Chickan · 2013-12-31 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is the FISA courts are not oversight. Since they have been around they have rejected only ~5 requests, compared to the thousands they have approved. That is a rubber stamp, not oversight.
Re:Lame duck President by MightyMartian · 2013-12-31 04:38 · Score: 1

I wasn't aware that Congress persecuting people for exercising long established liberties was the right thing to do.McCarthy was hounding screenwriters and folk singers, and even by the standards of the Red scare 1950s McCarthy's actions were deemed a contemptible violation of the 1st Amendment.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Lame duck President by Em+Adespoton · 2013-12-31 04:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I guess that's where we differ in politics between a border. And of course that's a brilliant idea, let's run with yours for a moment. So, Obama is going to do as he pleases, mess up the mid-term, and the following presidential election...just to do what he wants. Right-o...then again, I've seen that in Canada for the Conservative Party...killed them outright...look at the Kim Cambell fiasco.
I think that says more about the difference between the Canadian multi-party system and the US-bipartisan system (and the voters' roles) than it does about how they might kill the Democratic party. In Canada, people have no issues with completely dismantling a party and starting a new one that reflects the views of the people. I don't see that happening in the US any time soon.
There's a reason there's no concept of "lame duck" in Canada, and Mulroney/Campbell demonstrated it nicely when they attempted to play American politics.
Re:Lame duck President by Deep+Esophagus · 2013-12-31 04:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's too bad the American people are so divided, so beholden to their preferred "team", or else they might notice how thoroughly they're being fucked regardless of which party is in power.
My kingdom for mod points! Amen, preach on! As a centrist, I manage to piss off my friends on the right and left just about every day when I point out the fallacies in their partisan logic. My Facebook profile lists my political preference as "They are all lying weasels, every last one of them".
Our country's fondness for sports has made team affiliation creep into everything. Mac or Windows? Republican or Democrat? Plastic or paper? Die, heretic! We just aren't happy, apparently, if there isn't a "them" for "us" to oppose. And when there is a "them", we'll do and say anything, however outrageous, to bring "them" to utter destruction.
Re:Lame duck President by TubeSteak · 2013-12-31 05:03 · Score: 1

Take a look at the Navy SEALS . . . the best fighting force in the world . . . but the US Army command does not send them off everywhere at a whim.
The Joint Special Operations Command has grown enormously during the Global War on Terror.
There's currently ~20,000 total, with 13,000 of them deployed overseas, and ~9,000 of those in Afghanistan/Iraq (as of 2010).
Keep in mind that most of the Special Operators are guys with guns, support is provided through the CIA & other branches of the military.
About the only non-trigger pullers they have are their specially trained pilots.

If the Navy SEALS came under the command of the NSA, the NSA would deploy the SEALS everywhere to shoot up everyone. And instruct them to search through the dead bodies, to see if any of the dead were, in fact, terrorists.
That's actually exactly what the Special Forces are regularly sent in to do.
Here's a random article that mentions the Seals shooting up a convoy from their helicopter, then landing to take DNA samples.
They do a lot more of that than they used to, since drone strikes don't always leave much in the way of faces or dental records.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Lame duck President by zlives · 2013-12-31 05:04 · Score: 1

We are #1 !??!
no mod points today, but well said.
Re:Lame duck President by s.petry · 2013-12-31 05:14 · Score: 1

This, but a bit more. It is imperative that we, intellectuals, start waking people up. The "Republican" vs. "Democrat" argument is futile, and the wrong argument. It has not worked for nearly 50 years because both of these parties are the same team. Long ago Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" was scoffed as 'conspiracy theory' but much of what he predicted has come to fruition and much of what he speculated at the time has been proven to be true (in addition of course to the mountain of facts he presented).
Media (TV and most major papers) have been monopolized and polarized on hiding what has been happening through misinformation campaigns, and in some cases simply ignoring topics. People that watch what is called "News" are polarized on "their side" because they are taught to do so, and incited to do so. It helps the entrenched cowards maintain power, and they don't want it any other way.
Points being, that first you are absolutely right. Next point is how to start to unravel the entrenched power. Many people today get it, they see the impact of this entrenched power. They need confirmation and direction.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Lame duck President by AJH16 · 2013-12-31 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a little more insidious when you realize that is intentional and that both media and politicians fight to keep it that way. They intentionally use the most divisive issues possible and make their careers by making people as extreme as possible. It's horrible for the country, but great for accumulating power and wealth.

--
AJ Henderson
Re:Lame duck President by poetmatt · 2013-12-31 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Hahaha. Trust me, if you think Chicago is bad you should see New York and LA.
Hollywood and New York are the original crony capitalism groups, by definition. Look at the NY judge that made up his own rules just to rule in the NSA's favor yesterday! Those rules and facts that he used don't even exist! If that's not a clear "I am sucking at the government teat" then I don't know what is.
Chicago's corruption is the police force, but not the legal system itself. New York's is 100% regulatory capture.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/11062925713/judge-who-ruled-favor-nsa-relied-911-report-that-doesnt-even-mention-what-he-claims-it-does.shtml
Re:Lame duck President by WOOFYGOOFY · 2013-12-31 05:30 · Score: 1

The alternative to the ACA was socialized medicine like every other developed nation has and which Obama should have fought for . the ACA is a stepping stone to socialized medicine. This is the path social security traveled also
Re:Lame duck President by nobuddy · 2013-12-31 05:31 · Score: 1

The fastest way to decimate the ranks of the Tea Party would be for Obama to announce he is in favor of respiration.
Re:Lame duck President by WOOFYGOOFY · 2013-12-31 05:35 · Score: 1

Thanks for that link. For some reason, I hadn't read it. Very insightful from TechDirt and Pro Publica. Thanks man.
Re:Lame duck President by WOOFYGOOFY · 2013-12-31 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

You have to consider the idea that the NSA is blackmailing politicians or otherwise threatening them. This is after all one of the major worries of ubiquitous surveillance. How do we know we're not already there? This kind of thing was WAAAY out there for me before. Now I think it needs to be kept in the "not impossible" drawer and should evidence arise, not dismiss that evidence. Not saying I believe it, just saying it's no longer "impossible".
Re:Lame duck President by nobuddy · 2013-12-31 05:40 · Score: 1

Sedition. While they betrayed the American people, they did not betray them to a foreign government.
Re:Lame duck President by s.petry · 2013-12-31 06:15 · Score: 1

Remember that government sock-puppets get mod points too. History and critical thinking are fickle things and not generally for the masses.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Lame duck President by HermMunster · 2013-12-31 07:17 · Score: 1

Seriously, we have an retired ex-head telling the President to ignore what the commission stated. Makes sense seeing as he's the man that likely instituted many of these programs to begin with. And he says we'll appreciate them after the next attack? Seriously? After the next attack? It is pointless to have them if they don't stop the next attack.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:Lame duck President by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Our country's fondness for sports has made team affiliation creep into everything.
The most successful response power ever had to rebellion--whether in this century or another--involves the simple device of "divide and conquer." Ego is such an important foundational aspect of our species. It extends into identity politics as well. One reason the left will have trouble accomplishing anything is the lingering use of 70's radical nomenclature and thought norms. Groups of similar structural animus will self-divide themselves--not as one unified group in solidarity--but into disparate groups with separate structurally insignificant goals. Instead of "The People," it becomes: "The Blacks" or "The Gays and Lesbians" or "The Women" or "The Workers." It pays dividends to the structure if it doesn't even occur to anyone there is a bigger picture at stake.
Structural problems require structural change. Structural change occurs slowly. It also occurs very, very quickly.
What is most fascinating about what is occurring now is that those who write the software will determine the future of the power structure. Their biggest vote won't come at the polls, but will instead be determined--among other things--by what organizations for whom they choose to work.
What if Silicon Valley decides to rob the military-industrial complex of its toys? It could certainly be plausible. As the state decays due to lack of revenue (outsourced jobs, lower tax revenue because folks have no jobs) and those with excess amounts of capital (These folks, perhaps) decide to take advantage of both human capital (software talent) and structural capital, it's going to be an interesting next 50 years.
Looked at from this light, the Boston Dynamics acquisition by Google looks ahead of the curve.
"Don't be evil."
We'll see.
Re:Lame duck President by Camel+Pilot · 2013-12-31 07:57 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree.
Obama has the luxury of not seeking another term to guide whatever moral compass might remain within him.
He has an opportunity to make the reform of government surveillance an even greater legacy for his presidency than his ACA program.
Will he? Possibly not, but a newly elected POTUS will have even less incentive: any terrorist incident that occurs after a restructuring of the quasi-governmental snooping agencies will land at the feet of it's sponsor.
Not sure why this is modded "Troll"... the hive mind is buzzing in full force.
Any future terror attack will be exploited by the opposition against any politician that moved to restructure or restrict government spying... that is insightful not trollish.
Re:Lame duck President by DMUTPeregrine · 2013-12-31 08:02 · Score: 2

Weasles are amazing hunters, and very cute. Why insult them by comparing them to US politicians?

--
Not a sentence!
Re:Lame duck President by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-31 08:21 · Score: 1

"Next point is how to start to unravel the entrenched power."
To unravel the entrenched power, it is both necessary and sufficient to separate politics from "big money".

Some people think this is impossible, but it is not. It would be difficult to do, due to resistance from interested parties, but it would also be SIMPLE.
Re:Lame duck President by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-31 08:28 · Score: 1

"The alternative to the ACA was socialized medicine..."
This is a logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy".

There are many alternatives. Not only is socialized medicine not "THE" alternative, it is probably one of the least desirable alternatives.

The fact that others do it is also not much of a recommendation. Lots of people are assholes. Does that mean you should be one, too?
Re:Lame duck President by s.petry · 2013-12-31 08:42 · Score: 1

I agree with your assessment. I'll just point out that any action requires we first get out and teach people what's wrong. As long as they believe main stream media we remain in the current state.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re: Lame duck President by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Instead of throwing barbs and running maybe suggest an alternative. The idea that medicine can have a profit motive without an ethical motive makes whatever argument you are about to make repellent.
Re:Lame duck President by HiThere · 2013-12-31 09:22 · Score: 1

While it's hard to disagree with what you say, it's also true that if he vigorously defended the constitution against it's domestic enemies, he would quickly be dead.
FWIW, the fall guy, and perhaps he actually was the gunman, in the Kennedy assassination had known ties to both the military and the CIA. Was he an agent? If so, for who? Did he actually do the job? If you think you know the answer to those questions, you're wrong. It *could* have happened the way the Warren Commission declared it did. But that's really no more plausible than lots of other scenarios. (Explain how Jack Ruby was able to so quickly silence Oswald. How certain are you that the explanation is correct? Now, about what happened to Jack Ruby.....)
Sometimes the only responsible thing to do is to accept uncertainty. You *know* people are lying to you, but that doesn't tell you what the truth is.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Lame duck President by HiThere · 2013-12-31 09:31 · Score: 1

And violation of their oaths of office.
But actual witnesses may be hard to come by. You may well know that "one of those bastards did this", but that doesn't tell you which one. You could probably get them all as accomplices after the fact, but can you do that without having clear evidence against one of them?
What you *COULD* do is fire them all. Revoking their clearances would be sufficient grounds for that, and that doesn't require any oversight. The laws were intentionally written that way. And I'm sure you could prove misfeasance, if not malfeasance. And forbid them to ever again work for the federal government either directly or as a contractor (or subcontractor).

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Lame duck President by AJH16 · 2013-12-31 11:29 · Score: 2

Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting a two party system, but there is a difference between intentionally trying to create extremists and to inflame people towards extremes vs having two sides with different values that try to work together to find a middle ground. Until relatively recently the system worked great because we had the us vs them in the US vs Russia, but since that fell apart, they've made it a cold war between the parties instead and it will eventually destroy our ability to function (as it is already doing).

--
AJ Henderson
Re:Lame duck President by AJH16 · 2013-12-31 11:31 · Score: 2

That is also to say that my ideal would be far more than two parties. I'd like to see parties where anyone could find someone that agrees closely with them and get a voice proportionate to the number of people who share that view. As it is now, I basically always vote third party simply because I have irreconcilable issues with the right and the left's inability to be moderate and responsible.

--
AJ Henderson
Re:Lame duck President by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2013-12-31 12:41 · Score: 1

The problem with this is, money has the power and it's controlling both sides. Where the "two sides" disagree is mostly irrelevant. Where they agree is where the trouble is. You don't hear dissenting voices on the important issues, just voices that are dissenting over trivial ones. While they've got you focussed on raising the minimum wage a relative pittance, arguing over the ACA, or worrying about immigrants stealing jobs you don't want to do, you're not thinking about why no one has gone to jail over the banking crisis, or why the ACA is doing little to control costs, why the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are still making out like bandits, or why money has such undue influence over our political process. In the terms of the Prestidigitators, it's called "misdirection". While they've got your attention on one hand, it's the other one that's doing the funny business.
Re:Lame duck President by Mashiki · 2014-01-01 00:33 · Score: 1

Thanks for at least attempting to clarify the term though it seems that Obama bashers simply will not be denied their opportunity to, well, bash.

Apparently pointing out facts, is bashing. Then again, if you get all of your news from sites like NBC who are the official Team Obama cheerleaders, I can see how you'd be confused.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re: Lame duck President by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-01 12:17 · Score: 1

"Instead of throwing barbs and running maybe suggest an alternative. The idea that medicine can have a profit motive without an ethical motive makes whatever argument you are about to make repellent."
First, I'm neither throwing barbs or running. I was pointing out that GP's argument was fallacious. Which I did successfully, without the need to point out another alternative.

But since you brought it up, what alternative would you like? There are so many! There is the free-market alternative. And the private single-payer alternative. And the insurance alternative. And the anarchist alternative. Just to name a few.

"The idea that medicine can have a profit motive without an ethical motive makes whatever argument you are about to make repellent."
Sorry, but that's YOUR idea. It sure as hell doesn't resemble anything *I* wrote.
Re:Lame duck President by poetmatt · 2014-01-03 07:27 · Score: 1

Not enough people read techdirt, sadly. They think it's biased but really it's one of the best sources for digging out information as of lately.

This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by wbr1 · 2013-12-31 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

They'll poll damn well after the next attack

The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by WolfgangPG · 2013-12-31 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have to agree. The NSA may or may not have stopped any attacks with this snooping. They can of course point to attacks they claim to have stopped, but sadly we can't verify any of that. Instead we can point to the Boston Marathon Bombings where the US Government was informed by other countries to watch out for these guys and we still did nothing.

We also have the Fort Hood shooting. Where any Army person was using army computers to contact terrorists and went on to shoot up an army base. Where was the NSA there?

"Days after the shooting, reports in the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of e-mail communications between Hasan and the Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of his increasing radicalization for several years. The failure to prevent the shootings led the Defense Department and the FBI to commission investigations, and for Congress to hold hearings."
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by KBehemoth · 2013-12-31 01:21 · Score: 1

That tiger protection rock had a hidden microphone. We're going to have to take you in for questioning. What do you know about the Tamil Tigers?
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by dkleinsc · 2013-12-31 01:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also, he's demonstrably wrong: After the whole Boston Marathon bombing went down, the support for the NSA spying went down, not up. A logical reason for this: the NSA had clearly failed to catch terrorists despite all their willful violation of the rights of all Americans, so the benefits for all that intrusion were approximately 0.
Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by ImOuttaHere · 2013-12-31 01:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.
I can't imagine how (some? many?) Americans take a face value any comment that says NSA spying will prevent attacks on Americans when it was not needed in 2001. There was plenty of clear intelligence information leading up to the events of 9/11. No vast spying on Americans was needed to warn the Bush administration that something big was about to happen.
"Here is a representative sampling of the CIA threat reporting that was distributed to Bush administration officials during the spring and summer of 2001:
-- CIA, "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations," April 20
-- CIA, "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent," June 23
-- CIA, "Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays," July 2
-- CIA, "Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely," August 3
The failure to respond adequately to these warnings was a policy failure by the Bush administration, not an intelligence failure by the U.S. intelligence community..."
It makes me wonder why the NSA is pushing so hard to keep unconstitutional spying programs in place. What are they really doing? What are they needing to justify? What snake-oil are they trying to sell the American people? What are they really afraid of? Who are they attempting to control?
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by compro01 · 2013-12-31 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.
Hell, on the roads, every month is September, 2001. Roughly a 9/11 worth of people die every single month in vehicle accidents.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by hjf · 2013-12-31 02:03 · Score: 1

I read that as "Mr. President: you're dealing with powers you can't understand. It would be a shame if something bad happened to the country. CAPISCE?'
For those who can't read between lines: If the NSA gets questioned, they will attack the country (probably even kill the president).
I never believed the whole paranoid "9/11 was an inside job" theory. But what this guy just said.. wow.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by ImOuttaHere · 2013-12-31 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have to agree. The NSA may or may not have stopped any attacks with this snooping... We also have the Fort Hood shooting. Where any Army person was using army computers to contact terrorists and went on to shoot up an army base. Where was the NSA there?...
Allow me to take this just a small step further. What good has the NSA spying been in preventing any mass shooting attacks on Americans?
Tell me about how the NSA prevented mass killings (of 4 or more people) in Sandy Hook, New York, Paris(TX), Tulsa, Callison, Terrell, Phoenix, Rice, Washington DC, Dallas, Clarksberg, Santa Monica, etc, etc, etc?
Please don't tell me that NSA spying is a matter of definition. Mass death is mass death, regardless of country of origin, skin color, or religious bent.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by kilfarsnar · 2013-12-31 02:23 · Score: 2

Also, he's demonstrably wrong: After the whole Boston Marathon bombing went down, the support for the NSA spying went down, not up. A logical reason for this: the NSA had clearly failed to catch terrorists despite all their willful violation of the rights of all Americans, so the benefits for all that intrusion were approximately 0.
Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.
I thought the same thing. The next attack would show their ineffectiveness, not scare us all back into their arms. The powers that be will have to find something else with which to scare us all into compliance. This terrorism thing isn't working as well as it used to.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by kilfarsnar · 2013-12-31 02:37 · Score: 1

The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.
I can't imagine how (some? many?) Americans take a face value any comment that says NSA spying will prevent attacks on Americans when it was not needed in 2001. There was plenty of clear intelligence information leading up to the events of 9/11. No vast spying on Americans was needed to warn the Bush administration that something big was about to happen.
"Here is a representative sampling of the CIA threat reporting that was distributed to Bush administration officials during the spring and summer of 2001:
-- CIA, "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations," April 20 -- CIA, "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent," June 23 -- CIA, "Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays," July 2 -- CIA, "Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely," August 3
The failure to respond adequately to these warnings was a policy failure by the Bush administration, not an intelligence failure by the U.S. intelligence community..."
It makes me wonder why the NSA is pushing so hard to keep unconstitutional spying programs in place. What are they really doing? What are they needing to justify? What snake-oil are they trying to sell the American people? What are they really afraid of? Who are they attempting to control?
Well said. There have been a number of people who have come forward to say that the intelligence agencies knew something big was going to happen before 9/11/01. Yet that is not covered much by the Media. Condi Rice got a lot more exposure than Susan Lindauer ever will.
So it's no wonder to me that so many people still buy the bullshit. The Media generally can be counted on to keep a lid on uncomfortable information. The more uncomfortable it is, the less likely they are to actually tell their readers and viewers about it. They don't want to bring heat on themselves, or jeopardize their reputation or access. So we get bad or incomplete information by which to make decisions about our republic. This dynamic is not lost on those in power.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by MrLint · 2013-12-31 02:46 · Score: 1

"It makes me wonder why the NSA is pushing so hard to keep unconstitutional spying programs in place"
CYA? Seriously, leadership never takes responsibility. When you dump every possible thing on the table for the leaders to look at, at no point can the phrase "we didn't know" be said honestly.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by JWW · 2013-12-31 02:59 · Score: 1

Captain Hindsight is that you??
But you are right about one thing. If the NSA says they're doing what they're doing to protect us, but then an attack happens that proves they can't protect us, then their justifications for their spying are inadequate.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by bleh-of-the-huns · 2013-12-31 03:01 · Score: 1

And in every one of those places, the NSA has no (well is not supposed to anyways) purview. Domestic issues are meant to be handled by the FBI.
The NSA and CIA mandates are to operate outside the US, so yes, I have no issues whatsoever with the NSA spying on everyone and there mother outside the US, just like those same countries spy on everyone else. We just got caught with our hands in the cookie jar. Operating within the US is supposed to be illegal, although it appears no one in power wants to enforce the mandates.

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by bluefoxlucid · 2013-12-31 03:15 · Score: 1

Eternal September?

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by bluefoxlucid · 2013-12-31 03:19 · Score: 1

Not really. What else did the CIA give bush? Briefings on 3000 other terrorist attacks just about to happen, from 250 other terrorist groups in 87 countries? All that intelligence is like an oil field and you're looking for that one quart of oil that's going to burn ultra-hot because of its unique composition. One day it ignites while you're sucking it out of the ground and the rig blows up, and people are like, "There were so many warning signs, the equipment was groaning, it was out of maintenance, some drills had failed, engineers on the team had warned that this could happen..." and what really happened was a piece of sulfated rock came up in the oil that day, and would have ignited a brand-new, inspected, perfectly functional rig anyway, and we've NEVER had a piece of sulfated rock cause a fire like that so nobody could have possibly predicted that could be an actual thing.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by BringsApples · 2013-12-31 03:28 · Score: 1

I don't know man. I feel like the powers that be are in total control of things, and allow or disallow as they wish (I'm one of those stewpid '9/11 was an inside job' folks). Magic tiger protection rocks are really all We The People have now. I mean, until We The People band together to fight actual terror where it actually is, that is. In my mind, terror is whatever mankind as a whole allows.

As for the spying, I mean, our courts have decided that it's all legal. So what is everyone bitching about? It's not like America is a concentration camp, where innocent people are brought to be tortured and/or killed. As long as legal professionals see it as being legal, then damnit, it's legal!

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by mrchaotica · 2013-12-31 03:35 · Score: 1

We have an acronym for this; it's called FUD.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by berashith · 2013-12-31 03:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

are you saying that it is ok for them to defend attacks that may originate outside the borders by spying on people within the borders, but then have no responsibility for not stopping things as it isnt their job? If it isnt their job, then dont do it, problem solved. If they say the goal is to stop attacks, and they need complete autonomy in their behavior, then they are 100% failures every time something happens. You cant play both sides of the coin.
As they havent been stopping things, and things are a decided rarity, how about they quit their nonsense and start following the real laws of this country ( not the ones that arent constitutional and cant be challenged ) .
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by mrchaotica · 2013-12-31 03:41 · Score: 2

We also have the more important and fundamental issue, which is that things like the Boston Marathon bombing, Fort Hood and indeed 9/11 itself are worth it if the alternative is a totalitarian police state.
The victims of 9/11 should have been martyrs of freedom, but the PATRIOT Act, FISA etc. negated the value of their sacrifice.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by drinkypoo · 2013-12-31 03:53 · Score: 1

And in every one of those places, the NSA has no (well is not supposed to anyways) purview. Domestic issues are meant to be handled by the FBI.
That, sir, is prevarication. The NSA clearly is operating within that (this!) area, and therefore we ought to be deriving some good from it. The question of whether it should be stopped is a separate one from whether, if it is to be done, it should benefit The People. The answer is of course no, but it is still separate.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by drinkypoo · 2013-12-31 03:54 · Score: 1

Captain Hindsight is that you??
It's not just hindsight when you're forewarned. In that case, it's also simple blindness.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by sqrt(2) · 2013-12-31 04:26 · Score: 1

I'll have the bravery--which Americans used to pride themselves on--to state that I'd rather there be another attack than live with the current NSA abuses. I'd rather die with my liberty than live without it. And it's a false choice anyway, like you said. This won't make us safer, it won't prevent another attack. We're not trading away liberty for safety. We are giving away liberty, getting no extra safety, and becoming a police state. It's lose-lose-lose. There's no trade off. There's no balance. It's the ever tightening ratchet of fascism.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by MightyMartian · 2013-12-31 04:44 · Score: 1

And therein lies the problem. It is both startlingly intrusive and pathetically useless.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by bleh-of-the-huns · 2013-12-31 05:08 · Score: 1

Well, hence my ( ) statement, yes they are operating in the US, but my response was to the poster who rattled off a list of US locations. Once the NSA became aware of a domestic issue, they are supposed to/should have notified the FBI and let the FBI do their thing. The ineptitude of the FBI is also a topic for another time.
As I said earlier, my point was strictly about jurisdiction, not about methods, and who was breaking what laws.

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by gweihir · 2013-12-31 05:18 · Score: 1

Indeed. The available evidence suggests the NSA is not even trying to stop any attacks or rather is trying hard to not stop them. That would be logical for the to do: They benefit from every attack by more funding and power. Basically the whole thing is a scam, and the perpetrators hope nobody finds out they have very different goals from their proclaimed ones.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-12-31 05:22 · Score: 1

Domestic issues are meant to be handled by the FBI.
MOST domestic issues (yes, including Sandy Hook) are handled at State and Local levels. FBI doesn't get involved unless it has Federal or Interstate ramifications.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by Em+Adespoton · 2013-12-31 05:33 · Score: 2

The issue with your statement here is that the NSA does in fact only focus on foreign intelligence. Anything domestic that poses a threat, that they inadvertently collect, gets passed to the FBI to handle, and they have a very poor record at accomplishing anything. So really its on the FBI for not acting on those tips and intel, that info doesnt technically pass through NSA unless its collected through their means.
By definition then, wouldn't pretty much any terrorist threat on US citizens belong to the FBI, with the NSA only passing on the intelligence? So... since this is the way that ALL intelligence is supposed to be used, doesn't that imply that this intelligence channel is next to useless?
If I have an organization heavily funded that observes everything passing on the details they consider useful to my pet rock so that my pet rock can protect the country, it seems to me that yes, the situation of assigning this role to my pet rock should be examined, but so should the situation of both collecting the information that is virtually unusable in a legitimate channel, and setting up channels to communicate that aren't effective.
One idiotic decision doesn't suddenly make all the less-idiotic decisions OK.
From what I can see, the NSA has yet to prove that their domestic programs serve a legitimate use in any effective manner. This may not be their fault, but that doesn't make it any less true. If you disagree, I've got a pet rock to sell you.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by Em+Adespoton · 2013-12-31 05:44 · Score: 1

Captain Hindsight is that you??
It's not just hindsight when you're forewarned. In that case, it's also simple blindness.
No, it actually is hindsight when you're forewarned. The issue is that they're "forewarned" about a LOT of stuff, most of which is false. They have to prioritize which bits of intel to pass on to domestic agencies, and how urgent to flag that up. Then they have no control over how those agencies act on that intel.
The failing comes in the fact that they're supposedly the best we've got for intelligence, and they've obviously been messing up a bit on repeated occasions in communicating the right intel to the right people. So they may be doing a great job within their mandate, but the usefulness of that mandate is definitely called into question.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 05:47 · Score: 1

Drunk Drivers should be considered terrorists, and cameras and armed police officers should be in every bar and liquor store. Each car should have a dash-mounted camera pointed in, with feeds monitored to ensure not only drunk-driving, but also distracted-driving is eliminated from this God-blessed country.
Think of the lives that will be saved.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by Znork · 2013-12-31 06:08 · Score: 1

Frankly it sounded more like a threat. Maybe the NSA is planning to take their treasonous activities to the next level.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by YumoolaJohn · 2013-12-31 06:23 · Score: 1

I realize that people feel the need to attack these programs by saying they're not effective, but I feel that framing the debate this way is harmful in the long run. Our objection should be that we're not willing to sacrifice freedom for safety, even if these programs are effective. We should stress that any other objections we have are less important than the issue of freedom.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by Nyder · 2013-12-31 06:58 · Score: 1

They'll poll damn well after the next attack
The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.
Well, actually the big test was the boston bombing and the NSA failed big time, so logic says they won't catch the next one either.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by MobSwatter · 2013-12-31 09:20 · Score: 1

It is because it is not really about terrorism shock and aw, those are just the selling points of creating a business intelligence machine to conduct corporate espionage. This is the holy grail of mega corps to preserve and gain power and control, they make the law and will amend where necessary through corporate lobbying. But it is also their achilles heal as it is not healthy over all for the world economy, nothing is left to chance, advancement is curtailed in growing beyond it, but they cannot stop the inevitable critical mass that will result of it's existence, the monetary system fails as a result because you cannot skirt the bottom line and one can only print money so long before the monetary system implodes. This is why I believe the bankers that were "in the know" of the program took the bailout money and ran (twice). There was evidence to support 9/11 was going to happen and many events that followed, what makes you think them having information is going to prevent such, that is assuming that it wasn't a false flag event to justify the business intelligence machine in the first place. Ultimately having more information to sift through will only drown individuals looking for credible information of an event. I do not believe that defense contractors like Boeing or McDonnel Douglas are behind this as a third party TSA strangle hold on them at the airports would not be present by their own design, nor do they have the power necessary to effect necessary changes to dismantle this abomination. Instead I believe it is bigger, this was constructed under the Bush administration, and he's an oil guy. We have seen enough land in the U.S. around the world rendered uninhabitable by fracking and directly observed concealment of their actions on both the House and in the public eye. Focus on the subtle injustice and parts of the puzzle and it's architect will stand out.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-12-31 11:37 · Score: 1

It's not just hindsight when you're forewarned. In that case, it's also simple blindness.
It's hindsight to look back and say "Oh! THAT warning was true and correct, and we should have paid attention to it among the several thousand similar warnings that we get every year. After all, it is OBVIOUS that THAT warning was valid, and the others were just noise, right?"

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by VortexCortex · 2013-12-31 11:49 · Score: 1

It makes me wonder why the NSA is pushing so hard to keep unconstitutional spying programs in place. What are they really doing?
Well gee, that's obvious: COINTELPRO. Now consider that just like no military strategist in their right mind would group ships so close together presenting an unignorable opportunity in Perl Harbor -- even if it was a trap, and everyone knew the USA was looking for some way to polarize the people into consenting to war. So, yeah, maybe we did or didn't let that accident happen, but ask yourself this: If 6 times more people die from the flu each year than a 9/11 scale attack, and 400 times more people die every year from accidents and heart disease, then is just a few thousand lives on 9/11 not something the USA would consider letting be sacrificed to manufacture public consent to fund the military industrial complex's next economic war over resource privatization? Before you answer, consider they're OK with the death tool of nearly 300,000 innocent civilian casualties in our War on Terror.
Would you like to know more?
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by SpaceLifeForm · 2013-12-31 13:27 · Score: 1

Spot on. You left out the insurance scam companies.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by JimSadler · 2013-12-31 16:32 · Score: 1

Seriously individual nuts who wipe out a few innocent people are not mass murderers. They also can not be detected as in some cases the violence is spontanous and not in consultation with others. If a man goes off the deep end because he catches his wife cheating how could any agency ever know that within that same hour the bitter man will lash out and shoot up a school or a store or whatever? Some violence will always be with us. On the other hand we do have some ability to detect and prevent groups of people forming a conspiracy that involves international travel and an attempt to kill thousands of people. What the public can not easily judge is how many 9/11 type attacks we could survive and still be a nation. i suspect that we could take quite afew attacks. Look at the suffering in England during WWII. Those folks got bombed for years and cities like London stayed in tact or were rebuilt. The US is not so weak that we can't take a few punches and remain standing.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by m0niker · 2014-01-01 05:24 · Score: 1

A jolly good way to create more public sector jobs and make jobless statistics look very good indeed for any new president. Well done.
Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by m0niker · 2014-01-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Just goes on to show that a certain level of intelligence is required to act on such intelligence or else it will just be dumbness.

Any chance we can act like adults this time? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Painful truths:
NSA workers are not traitors that should be killed. Please look at the scum who cut off children's heads in CAR to understand what real tyranny is.

NSA will be changed but domestic surveillance will probably go to the DOJ (who has a stellar track record)

This has all happened before 20, 40, 70, and I think 150 years ago. It will probably happen again.

Now, please, can we talk about changes without devolving into fake revolutionaries? You're pissed off. We all get it. Now let's do something useful other than scream.

Re:Any chance we can act like adults this time? by freax · 2013-12-31 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with this. I'm also really pissed that secret services refuse to create more transparency and do a lot of things that are not lawful (like dragnet surveillance, indiscriminate mass surveillance of ordinary law abiding citizens, economic espionage, etc).
That, however, doesn't mean that we'll have any progress by calling workers at the NSA traitors who should be killed or even heavily sanctioned. Processes should however be fixed.
I do think transparency and legality of their profession has to come back (by following the processes and requirements, and having a public debate on all this).
It's not a deal society can make to allow a surveillance police state (even if it's here already; it still doesn't make it OK for it to stay). The US can and should make legislation deals with the EU on this if the fear is that internationally laws and processes aren't worth a lot. It can make such deals even with China or Russia, and with other BRIC countries too. There is no need to have invasive non-targeted worldwide surveillance of ordinary citizens for America to be much more safe than before 9/11. Whoever in the US military and/or government who's telling you that is lying.
Right now, however, the US is showing absurd distrust in the rest of the world and actions done by your NSA as being seen in the population worldwide as military action against them. They are ordinary citizens with no intent to harm anybody in the US. But by invading their privacy so insanely massively you Americans ARE going to create a lot of nutcases for decades to come.
Stop it.
Re:Any chance we can act like adults this time? by minderaser · 2013-12-31 01:41 · Score: 1

Please look at the scum who cut off children's heads in CAR to understand what real tyranny is.
Yea, good thing we don't have reactionaries calling for someone to be hanged without due process like this guy (Former CIA director James Woolsey) or this guy (Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton). (Yes, they're former ... do you really think their replacements are any better? That's what's really painful
Re:Any chance we can act like adults this time? by iamwahoo2 · 2013-12-31 03:17 · Score: 1

I agree that NSA employees should not be killed. But those that have abused this system should face justice if they have violated the law. We have at this point, irrefutable proof the James Clapper committed perjury. We know that other crimes have been committed within the NSA, an investigation needs to identify the parties responsible and they need to be brought to justice. It is also clear that there is rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in the forms of programs that have no value to US citizens and only serve to increase the power of the intelligence community. Those programs need to be shut down along with appropriate reductions in force.
Re:Any chance we can act like adults this time? by VortexCortex · 2013-12-31 12:07 · Score: 1

Now, please, can we talk about changes without devolving into fake revolutionaries?
No. You're probably a shill. If not, you're just an ignorant fool.
How does actively silencing Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Privacy Rights, and Anti-War Activist equate to "land of the free" by any definition of the word?
Remember when the NSA is thinking about using Porn to silence "radical" thinkers? Yeah, don't forget it's not just "subversive people" it's anyone who threatens the status quo: It's folks like Martin Luther King, and John Lennon we're talking about.
Now the NSA, complicit in COINTELPRO activites, even on a personal level (LoveINT), and is proven to be one big single point of failure that probably every spy agency has far more data from than Snowden ever dreamed, you think we should continue pissing away money to support oppression and socio-political control? What an idiot. Please do not reproduce.
Re:Any chance we can act like adults this time? by rubycodez · 2013-12-31 15:33 · Score: 1

well aren't you funny, our Federal government is in fact arming Syrian rebels who are raiding Christian towns and cutting off babies and women's heads. The CIA and NSA are in fact that evil.
And what is this nonsense of calling talk of revolution "devolving", our government has far surpased the abuses that lead our founding fathers to shed blood.

That is the guy.... by jimpop · 2013-12-31 01:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

..who was on guard duty before 9/11.... why should anyone listen to him?

Re:That is the guy.... by drinkypoo · 2013-12-31 03:58 · Score: 1

..who was on guard duty before 9/11.... why should anyone listen to him?
Guard duty? It's not like he was encamped atop the towers with a machine gun. Intelligence reports on a possible attack were made and not followed up on by the administration, which by the way was helmed by a member of a famly with a long-standing relationship with the family of the leader of the attackers.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:That is the guy.... by jimpop · 2013-12-31 06:26 · Score: 1

> Intelligence reports on a possible attack were made and not followed up on
That pretty much sums it all up. I say prosecute *everyone* involved who failed to "follow up", as you say. If we're not going to prosecute them, at least do pay them "talking head" money, nor give credence to their words.

His argument is false by bazmail · 2013-12-31 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

He argues that it is legal because it is useful. Using that logic, I should be allowed use claymore mines to protect my property from intruders. Indiscriminate, illegal but probably effective. He should remember, if you subvert the constitution, you corrode the very fabric of the nation. We're becoming just another regime.

Re:His argument is false by gmuslera · 2013-12-31 01:36 · Score: 1

What is doing is like putting claymore mines in all the city, and inside your house to protect it, yes, could be effective, or you or your children could hit one of your own claymore mines, or some thieves instead of stepping on one of them, just throw a pebble to it to make it explode and hurt you and your family. And don't forget that the people that installed the mines can dodge them and enter with no problem at your house anytime. Eventually your wife and children will leave you to not be with such risk for every step they take, you saved the pawn but lost the king.
Re:His argument is false by Kjella · 2013-12-31 02:17 · Score: 2

He's a general and his job is to win a military victory, they're generally in the "All's fair in love and war" corner. Of course the US is not actually in a war, but generals are always preparing for one or he's taken the "War on Terror" to mean that the US is always at war against their enemies. He's thinking like on the battle field, if he thinks the enemy is hiding in a building he doesn't ask for a warrant he assaults it because good intent is enough. If there was collateral damage, well it was for the greater good and it was the enemy's fault that the situation started in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd like to do away with large parts of the Bill of Rights.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:His argument is false by eric_harris_76 · 2014-01-01 11:42 · Score: 1

Uh, the US kinda already is.
If you want to mark up a copy of the US Constitution, either with a highlighter to show what parts are still in effect, or with a Sharpie to hide what is not, pick the highlighter.
You'll use less ink.

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.

Perhaps if the public new the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I really like the part about "there have been no abuses". Perhaps Hayden would like to tell the US public the truth. Let's see how long it takes before he gets a bullet to the face, let alone a prison sentence.

Scumbags.

Re:Perhaps if the public new the truth... by Desler · 2013-12-31 01:25 · Score: 3, Informative

LOVEINT wasn't an abuse? The FISA courts taking about how the NSA was deceiving them wasn't abuse? What the fuck is Hayden smoking to be making such outlandish claims?

Formal fallacy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

[quote]They may not poll real well right now. They'll poll damn well after the next attack ...'[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

Re:Failure polls well?!? by SJHillman · 2013-12-31 01:27 · Score: 1

Just look at how much stuff people accepted after 9/11. As a people, we're brave and independent in the face of peace but we damn well want the government to do something if we feel threatened.

The key word is... by portwojc · 2013-12-31 01:28 · Score: 1

In this comment "Right now, since there have been no abuses and almost all the court decisions on this program have held that it's constitutional, I really don't know what problem we're trying to solve by changing how we do this" the key word is... ALMOST.

Re:The key word is... by Desler · 2013-12-31 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

His claim about there being no abuses is a bald-faced lie. Why should anyone believe anything in that sentence after the first major lie?
Re:The key word is... by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 02:04 · Score: 1

No abuses?
One word:
Loveint
Re:The key word is... by Jason+Levine · 2013-12-31 02:07 · Score: 3, Informative

"There have been no abuses"
What about LOVEINT?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/26/20709855-loveint-nsa-letter-discloses-employee-eavesdropping-on-girlfriends-spouses?lite
I'd certainly call using your "catch the terrorists super-spying" powers to eavesdrop on your girlfriend an abuse of power. Of course, he'd probably just hand wave that away as inconsequential because [super spooky voice]TERRORISTS!!!!!![/super spooky voice]

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2013-12-31 06:20 · Score: 2

"LOVEINT" isn't an abuse of power so much as it is an abuse of privilege by approximately 1 person of 40,000 per year. It isn't an institutional problem but rather a personal problem for a miniscule portion of the NSA's employees ~ 1 per year. That 1 person is then disciplined or fired. It has no official sanction, it is against policy and the rules, people that do it get fired.
If you want to use that as a justification for dismantling the NSA then shall we dismantle every large city police force? I'm pretty sure most of them have at least one policeman that engages in some form of abuse on at least one occasion. That would be an interesting standard to apply to government, don't you think? One mistake by a peon in a far away state and you lose your job? Any thoughts on how that would work out in practice?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2013-12-31 06:21 · Score: 1

I don't think so.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The key word is... by Jason+Levine · 2013-12-31 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

It might not be an abuse by a majority of people, but it is an abuse. Hayden specifically stated that there were NO abuses and that the absence of abuses shows that the program should continue. Demonstrating that there WERE abuses (even if they weren't NSA-approved abuses) shows this line of argument to be completely false. (The fact that a program shouldn't be evaluated solely on the basis of "is it being abused right now" is a different conversation, though a relavent one to the overall discussion.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2013-12-31 06:54 · Score: 1

Is there proof of abuse by the NSA as an institution? Even a division, or team? Rendering 39,000/40,000 as "a majority" doesn't really capture the truth of the matter, does it? I don't think the line of argument you are pursuing is a useful analysis of the situation.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The key word is... by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 07:12 · Score: 1

1 in 40,000 that we know of. The real number may be many times that. There's also minimal sanction: They get fired, but that's it. For an act like that, there really ought to be criminal charges.
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2013-12-31 07:21 · Score: 1

NSA offers details on 'LOVEINT' (that's spying on lovers, exes)

In 5 of the 12 cases, the employee resigned before being disciplined. In 1 instance, the employee retired before being disciplined, and in another the worker retired before the investigation had been finalized. Half the cases were referred to the US Department of Justice (1 of those was declined by the DOJ), and in 2 other instances, records were insufficient to determine if the case had been passed on to the Justice Department. None of the workers were prosecuted.
Being fired from a job like that has a significant permanent affect on one's career opportunities. No more security clearances, for example.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The key word is... by rahvin112 · 2013-12-31 08:57 · Score: 1

Actually using those NSA powers to spy on your girlfriend is in fact ILLEGAL. That there is not a single soul in jail for doing so says something about the NSA and how much they can be trusted as they hold their own employees above the law.
Re:The key word is... by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 09:36 · Score: 1

So half of them weren't even fired - they were allowed to resign. Sure, no more security clearance, but nothing to stop them just going to the private sector.
I imagine the NSA wanted to keep things quiet, and letting someone resign is a lot easier to cover up.
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2013-12-31 09:58 · Score: 1

It's not murder, and if it's being reported it isn't a cover up. I would think the person being disciplined would be at least as interested in keeping it quiet.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The key word is... by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 11:45 · Score: 1

It wasn't widely reported. Snowden leaked records of a few events.
I also imagine it might be hard to prosecute someone for abusing a surveillance system that doesn't officially exist outside highly classified circles. That might explain why they were allowed to resign.
Re:The key word is... by crimson+tsunami · 2013-12-31 14:27 · Score: 1

Ok everyone, It's all ok now. There not abusing their power just their privileges, move along nothing to see here.
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2013-12-31 15:59 · Score: 1

1 in 40,000 per year, for an unacceptable but nonetheless relatively minor (in another sense) offense. Do you have any populations in mind that would have 0 misconduct?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The key word is... by crimson+tsunami · 2013-12-31 21:58 · Score: 1

It's ok, we get it. 1 guy turned himself in voluntarily for a minor offence when there was no way of getting caught.
There aren't anymore like him or they would have also turned themselves in after we asked nicely.
Done and dusted the other 39,999 are A ok.
Re:The key word is... by cold+fjord · 2014-01-01 03:56 · Score: 1

Your snark is probably pretty close, except I wouldn't assume "there was no way of getting caught."

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Well, that is Fucked. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not an America, although I am a citizen of one of the 5eyes - the one with a fundamentally criminal past.

Freedom is about being about being able to live your life as you choose. Freedom is about disagreeing with other peoples' choices as to how they live their life, yet accepting that choice, as long as it doesn't to detrimentally affect yours.

"O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

Question mark is very well placed. The question mark was in the positive for around 200 years, however I think it is conclusive now. The answer is "Nope."

There is no question about America now about being home of the free and the brave. Terrorism won, because terrorism is about causing terror, and therefore ridiculous levels of measures against it.

(heh, this post will probably get me on the NSA list, but I'm probably already there anyway.)

Re:Well, that is Fucked. by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 02:07 · Score: 2

You could still call it the 'Land of the free-er-than-most.'
There isn't really much to judge the 'brave' on any more. No domestic wars in living memory, no wilderness in need of conquoring, no natives left to forceibly display. Life is quite comfortable for most, so there just isn't any need for brave.
Re:Well, that is Fucked. by jareth-0205 · 2013-12-31 02:37 · Score: 1

You could still call it the 'Land of the free-er-than-most.'
Is this what the US aspires to now? To be slightly better than average? What happened to the "best country in the world"?
Re:Well, that is Fucked. by Culture20 · 2013-12-31 03:33 · Score: 1

Where coercion exists (theft, fraud, physical force or threat thereof), freedom cannot. ... Freedom requires voluntary association, and in essence, *is* voluntary association. Coercive association is the opposite, and the two concepts are mutually exclusive (unlike what government teaches you).
Although paradoxically, voluntary association sometimes requires coercive association to prevent other coercive association (a threat of arrest and detainment to keep a potential criminal from performing theft, fraud, physical force or threat thereof). It's a balancing act, but unfortunately, the government has tipped from using "threat" as the initial step of coercive association on everyone (expression of law and penalties for breaking said law), and has started using "theft" as the initial step of coercive association on everyone (making illegal copies of our copyrighted data, and sometimes breaking encryption schemes to do so. Okay, that was partly a joke. But mass surveillance does feel like theft more than anything else, complete with the sickening feeling of loss mingled with uneasiness).

Yeaaaaaaaahhhhh, right by MikeLip · 2013-12-31 01:33 · Score: 1

NSA/TSA//WTF-SA This guy is presupposing NSA is going to be able to stop an attack, assuming anyone is planning one. The only results they have to show are nulls - "All these horrible things didn't happen because we were watching! What horrible things? We can't tell you. It's secret. But truly, they didn't happen. Remember, all that bad stuff that didn't happen? That was all us! So we don't need anyone to watch us, just trust us. We won't turn on the webcam on your teenagers laptop, we pinkie-swear!"

Record of Prevented Attacks by Phoenix666 · 2013-12-31 01:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

The record of prevented attacks, according to the official report, is zero. The surveillance programs the NSA runs have prevented no attacks. They have, however, fundamentally undermined our Constitution and the entire rule of law in the United States of America. The citizenry has been watching, stunned, while the Congress, Whitehouse, and courts in DC have been wiping their collective behind with our foundational document, and are now looking at each other, waiting to see who's gonna pick up the gun and put the mad dog down. The criminals in DC and Wall Street misread the apparent lack of reaction with acquiescence or agreement. It's not. It's the entire mass of the country, who already have their hands full with many, many deep problems, discovering this massive systemic betrayal and trying to process what the best course of action is. If DC does not act now to channel things into productive reform, they will explode to the detriment of all, but especially to the detriment of DC and their masters on Wall Street.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

After the next attack? by Dunbal · 2013-12-31 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

"After the next attack"

Wait a second - you mean that you admit the NSA is not able to prevent the attacks? OK, so explain again why it is a necessary, nay, "vital" government agency?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:After the next attack? by aviators99 · 2013-12-31 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The NSA *is* the "next attack". It's an enemy combatant's dream. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Re:After the next attack? by coolsnowmen · 2013-12-31 07:11 · Score: 1

I'm having a hard time agreeing with this. If I was an EC against the USA, which one of my goals would be met by having a stronger clandestine arm of the federal government?
A Terrorist wants mayhem, and destruction, and fear, not 1984. I'll check back tomorrow to see what you've come up with.
Re:After the next attack? by rmdingler · 2013-12-31 11:07 · Score: 1

Insightful. Very original.
The terrorists (ECs) of late do not combat America much in a traditional sense of the word.
It is possible that civic strife through overreaction is the best disruption some of them can hope for.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway

What by lagomorpha2 · 2013-12-31 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

"They may not poll real well right now. They'll poll damn well after the next attack ..."

So... these things aren't popular now... but the next time they fail to stop an attack... Americans will be glad the NSA was here to fail to stop the attack?

The sad part is he's probably right, the public actually is that stupid.

Because of "OOH SKEERY!" by Chas · 2013-12-31 01:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

He's right in one way. It's probably not going to change.

And then he pulls the boogie man out of his pocket.

"The next attack."

So we're supposed to just huddle up in a corner and live in fear for the rest of forever. Just so that, MAYBE, some day, they catch another underpants bomber?

Uhm...

Not to put too fine a point on that, FUCK NO!

At some point, reality sets in and people need to realize that The Real World (not the stupid "reality TV show") is NOT a safe place. And NO amount of watching will curtail EVERY attempt.

Nor will throwing away our rights like a hot potato make us any safer.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Because of "OOH SKEERY!" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 02:19 · Score: 1

It's a very mean/evil thing to say, but I sometimes feel that what the US needs is a _real_ war, on US soil. So that the general populace gets a grip and learns what works like "terror", "danger" etc. _actually_ mean.
Though I guess it would be enough if the media just owned up to its job and said things like "In the US cows kill more people than terrorists, who will do something about the cow threat?", or just simply "terrorists are not a threat in the US. None whatsoever". If said often enough it might actually sink in.

Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Looking at it from the outside, i.e not being a US citizen:

1. You piss of everybody else on the planet, so do not expect any goodwill.
2. There were abuses, please do google loveint.
3. Snowden walked ot of NSA with *all* their goodies, so how says that that did not happen before ? He was just the first to go public with the abuses.
4. How can any US citizen still talk about the "land of the free", that is totally ridiculous and hypocrite at the same time.
5. You do have the best democracy that money can buy

Re:Bullshit by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-31 02:14 · Score: 1

Snowden wasn't a high-up NSA officer. He was a lowly contractor, and could only sneak out so much of that little he did have access to. For all that he has revealed, it's almost certainly just a tiny fraction of what the NSA is up to. There are probably all manner of even worse things they were so secret about Snowden didn't have access. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were involved in manipulating elections around the world to favor US-friendly politicians, or stealing commercially sensitive information from non-American companies and handing it over to American (we all know China does the same!), or such scandalous activities as that.
Re:Bullshit by spacepimp · 2013-12-31 03:17 · Score: 1

Snowden was an administrator and had fairly high level access to documents. He also found ways to get the data he felt relevant. He walked with millions of documents.

Call for him to he arrested and tried by silas_moeckel · 2013-12-31 01:42 · Score: 1

Since many of these atrocities started on his watch. He is responsible for untold abuse of power.

--
No sir I dont like it.

Re:Call for him to he arrested and tried by spacepimp · 2013-12-31 03:20 · Score: 1

Didn't he just inherit it from the TIA which was defunded by congress under Poindexter? Then blame him... Passing the buck because you inherited something doesn't mean you aren't guilty. If you don't stop the abuses you are promoting them.

The cherry tree in my garden ... by Alain+Williams · 2013-12-31 01:56 · Score: 2

is why I have not had an elephant knock my fence down. The evidence is there - my fences have stood strong after I replaced them in the gales a couple of years ago. If I were to cut the tree down I would run the risk of damaged fences; it is far safer to keep the tree.

Likewise: we know that if the NSA had not been snooping then there would have been worse attacks than the Boston bombers, etc. They just have to deny their achievements to protect their effectiveness. If they are reined in they will loudly tell everyone how it could have been prevented when the next attack happens.

(The fact that I live in urban England is surely irrelevant on the absence of elephants in my garden.)

No abuses? by godless+dave · 2013-12-31 01:57 · Score: 5, Informative

"Right now, since there have been no abuses..."
NSA employee spied on nine women without detection
NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds
No abuses, General?

--
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -

Re:No abuses? by Jason+Levine · 2013-12-31 02:09 · Score: 1

Wait... is the general trying a Jedi mind trick on us? *waves hand* There have been no NSA abuses of the spying system. *waves hand* You WANT the NSA to spy on everything you do. *waves hand* Give the NSA more money to spy on more people. *waves hand*

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:No abuses? by kilfarsnar · 2013-12-31 02:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Right now, since there have been no abuses..." NSA employee spied on nine women without detection NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds No abuses, General?
See, that's the problem right there. We know he has lied to us. He has no credibility. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd look up to be sure. As we all know, once you have lost trust, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong; no on will listen to you. It's not just Hayden. So many government officials and spokespeople have lied to cover their asses, or hide wrongdoing, I just can't take their word for anything anymore.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)

Care for the mentally ill by anmre · 2013-12-31 01:58 · Score: 1

By my count, more folks (including dozens of children) have been slaughtered in recent years by young American men who were clearly deranged, than by any well-coordinated "terrorist" attack. Where is the POTUS commission on that?

...since there have been no abuses... by PoochieReds · 2013-12-31 02:01 · Score: 2

Doesn't LOVEINT count?

Even if it doesn't, that's not the point.

I think we can all agree that having these sorts of communications records is a despot's wet dream. The fact that it hasn't been abused yet is immaterial. It's too tempting a tool for those with the wrong motives.

Re:...since there have been no abuses... by currently_awake · 2013-12-31 10:58 · Score: 2

If some contractor (Snowden) can get access to such a huge quantity of secrets then so can the terrorists. If I can think of a dozen ways a terrorist could use that information to harm America, I'm sure the terrorists could think of a thousand. Spending Billions of American taxpayer dollars just to have the bad guys use it to harm your country is not safer.

Re:Failure polls well?!? by P-niiice · 2013-12-31 02:02 · Score: 1

And that's why I don't have the balls to be President. Personally, I think the solution is keep the capability but somehow rigidly enforce a real, transparent review process. Demonizing Bush and Obama isn't helping here. We should be more mature than that. We should be fixing the problem.

Polls? So what? by sfsp · 2013-12-31 02:03 · Score: 2

They'll poll damn well after the next attack ...

And they'll STILL be wrong.

This cock-sucking vial douchebag by fredrated · 2013-12-31 02:12 · Score: 1

need to be hung by the neck until dead-dead-dead.

They'll poll damn well after the next attack by SpaceLifeForm · 2013-12-31 02:27 · Score: 1

Sounds like a threat, like he knows there will be an attack. Perhaps he is correct, because he has inside info.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Re:They'll poll damn well after the next attack by PPH · 2013-12-31 04:30 · Score: 2

Actually, they'll poll really well if some SWAT team kicks in some doors and stops the next attack. And the NSA's contribution to that is revealed. I don't think the current surveillance regime (what we knew of it, anyway) polled terribly well after Boston. The Russians told us to watch these guys and still our entire bag of tricks didn't stop them.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:They'll poll damn well after the next attack by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-12-31 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, they'll poll really well if some SWAT team kicks in some doors and stops the next attack. And the NSA's contribution to that is revealed. I don't think the current surveillance regime (what we knew of it, anyway) polled terribly well after Boston. The Russians told us to watch these guys and still our entire bag of tricks didn't stop them.
True. Results would be a more effective argument. But they're not really interested in results -- at least from what people like Hayden do and say -- they're interested in pursuing unconstitutional total dragnet surveillance of everyone's communications for its own sake (and whatever nefarious uses they can come up with now or in the future). As you say, the system didn't help catch the Boston bad guys. It was never intended to. The Boston guys could have been caught by acting on the tip, getting a warrant based on that, which a judge would have certainly approved in a Constitutional, above-the-board process, tapping their phones, searching their place, interviewing acquaintances and other old-fashioned police work. All things that could be done with regular oversight and due process. No new laws, no secret courts, no black budgets.
The NSA and the Executive branch want unfettered, unlimited, unaccountable surveillance for their own reasons. "Catching terr'ists" is just the excuse. I've even got a car analogy. Back in the day, I wanted a 4 barrel carburetor and high performance manifolds from my Mustang. I told my dad that it would get better mileage that way -- you know, 'cause "better breathing." Of course he didn't fall for that, he knew I just wanted it to go faster to impress friends and (in my mind) girls.

--
I am not a crackpot.

This is what happens... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 02:27 · Score: 1

This is what... happens when... we let Captain James T Kirk... submit stories to Slashdot...

Grr by LookIntoTheFuture · 2013-12-31 02:50 · Score: 2

"far safer and privacy is far more secured with NSA holding the data than some third party."

This data is not safe for long term storage ANYWHERE.

--
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")

"since there have been no abuses" by CaptainOfSpray · 2013-12-31 02:51 · Score: 1

and no successes either....it seems the NSA is an expensive boondoggle (insert link to pics of Keith Alexander's Star Trek Bridge) and should therefore be culled to 10% of the current size.

--
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders

Re:I've got a tip for Mr. Hayden: by kilfarsnar · 2013-12-31 02:57 · Score: 1

Just mount the next attack. That'll teach them!

It's just for the Good of the USA!

This would all be new and innovative... oh, wait.

It's been done before. And if people think it couldn't happen in America, they need to study some history.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)

Re:Failure polls well?!? by spacepimp · 2013-12-31 02:57 · Score: 1

They tried that 30 years ago when they created the FISA courts. To stop abuses in the NSA there was a transparent review process which is not working apparently as they are abusing it now as they did then. The power is not something they are capable and appropriate stewards of, and they shouldn't nor should anyone be entrusted with it.

We Know by Bob9113 · 2013-12-31 03:02 · Score: 2

'I really don't know what problem we're trying to solve by changing how we do this,' he said.

We know you don't, pudding. Now go sit down and be quiet.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:We Know by LookIntoTheFuture · 2013-12-31 03:17 · Score: 1

Nice.

--
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")

Michael Hayden by cfulton · 2013-12-31 03:14 · Score: 1

Is a creep.

--
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.

They'll poll damn well after the next attack by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-12-31 03:15 · Score: 2

Hayden: 'And I think some of the right things with regard to the commission's recommendations are not the popular things. They may not poll real well right now. They'll poll damn well after the next attack ...'

So, appeal to emotion. We can safely disregard your message then since it is, by definition, not well thought out.

--
I am not a crackpot.

Who would dare to try and reign in the NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 03:16 · Score: 1

Anyone think that we have anyone in a position powerful enough to reign in the NSA that doesn't have enough dirt in their past to end their career?

more afraid of the nsa by Dan667 · 2013-12-31 03:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder if this idiot general realize people are beginning to be more afraid of the nsa than terrorists. And I would say the level of incompetence the nsa has shown in being able to manage this enormous power with a single individual able to walk off with their intelligence crown jewels indicates no one should have these types of power. More innocent people are at risk from nsa and government incompetence than anything they think they are doing. The tsa is security theater not adding any actual security, and now the nsa is now is showing a level of intelligence theater whose only value may be their agents abusing to spy on their girlfriends.

Gen. Hayden Quote is Insane! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 03:39 · Score: 4, Informative

During the interview General Michael Hayen stated. "...and the only thing that people like me wish is: that when we do these kinds of decisions, that we base it on facts". Well, here are some facts for the POTUS to consider:

FACT - U.S. Intellegence agencies ignored credible tips that could have stopped 9/11 (Flight Instructor).
FACT - U.S. Intellegence agencies ignored credible tips that could have stopped the failed underwear bomber (Father).
FACT - U.S. Intellegence agencies ignored credible tips that could have stopped the Boston Marathon Bombings (Boston Murder / Russia).
FACT - Countries across the world are ceasing to use technology products with U.S. origin (Cisco, Google, etc), damaging the economy.
FACT - U.S. (CIA specifically) drone strikes kill innocent civilians and create more enemies of the U.S.
FACT - U.S. citizens killed by drone strikes are not provided due process.
FACT - Documents released by Snowden indicate that FISA judges found NSA activities unconstitutional.

In that light, General Michael Hayden and his ilk should be arrested for treason and war crimes. This may include members of the current and former exective branches (Read "Dirty Wars").

Parent is a good post by Xaedalus · 2013-12-31 03:57 · Score: 1

I agree with you; the problem is, how do you explain that to the families of the victims of Boston, Fort Hood, and 911? Many, if not most of them campaigned for putting the Patriot Act in place, and for beefing up internal and external security. They did so out of grief, anger, and trauma-induced xenophobia. How, as a society, do we counter that? Because in my experience it's nearly impossible to use reason with someone who's near out-of-their-mind with grief, anger, and a suddenly-awakened fear of strangers that's horrifically melded to PTSD.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

Re:Parent is a good post by mrchaotica · 2013-12-31 04:39 · Score: 2

I wouldn't expect explaining it to people who experienced direct loss to be either possible or -- ideally -- necessary. It is irresponsible governance for the politicians to respond to the impulsiveness of people too grief-stricken to think clearly.
There were nearly 300 million people in the United States in 2001. Even if the loss of each of the 2,977 9/11 victims directly affected 1000 people, that's still less than 1% of the population. The President should have made a speech after 9/11 to explain this concept to everybody else.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Mod Parent up please by Xaedalus · 2013-12-31 04:00 · Score: 1

This is a very good troll, and it's a good thought-provoking post.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

That's because on /. by Xaedalus · 2013-12-31 04:04 · Score: 1

it's cool and hip to demonize those in power. Our fellow posters have a marked tendency to come on here and bloviate about how cruel, stupid, and corrupt everyone else is. Caught up in the venting of the toxic fumes emanating from their ego, they never once stop to ask if they themselves would be any better, or consider that the vast majority of our government is indeed composed of good, honest, tax-paying citizens, who get up every morning resolved to do the best they can, just like the rest of us.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

Re:That's because on /. by YumoolaJohn · 2013-12-31 06:30 · Score: 2

they never once stop to ask if they themselves would be any better
That's because it's a completely irrelevant point. Even if they wouldn't be any better, that has nothing to do with whether or not what the government is doing is morally wrong. Try being more logical.

or consider that the vast majority of our government is indeed composed of good, honest, tax-paying citizens
A vast majority of our government is composed of greedy, power-hungry fools who will violate our rights and the constitution if we let them. We've seen this time and time again, and unless you ignore history (and the present) completely, your vision of what the people who make up the government are like is but a mere delusion.
Re:That's because on /. by Xaedalus · 2013-12-31 07:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'll try being more logical when you stop resorting to smear tactics using negative fallacies. "A vast majority of our government is composed of greedy, power-hungry fools" my ass--there's no proof behind that assertion, just an attempt to troll or justify your own irrationality.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Re:That's because on /. by YumoolaJohn · 2013-12-31 08:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'll try being more logical when you stop resorting to smear tactics using negative fallacies.
There is no fallacy in my assertion; it is an opinion, just like what you said. If my opinion is a fallacy, then so is the following: "or consider that the vast majority of our government is indeed composed of good, honest, tax-paying citizens". I cannot consider people who violate people's rights and the constitution to be good or honest. I vehemently disagree with your assessment.
Second of all, whether I resort to "smear tactics using negative fallacies" or not, that has little to do with whether or not you should strive to be more logical.
Re:That's because on /. by YumoolaJohn · 2013-12-31 08:12 · Score: 1

As for proof, I put forth the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, modern copyright and patent laws, free speech zones, all the wars we've been fighting lately, DUI checkpoints, and gitmo. That's what I thought of off the top of my head, and whether or not those things qualify as proof to you, they do to me. It mystifies me how anyone could think the government is mostly honest and good when we have such things.

'Nuff Said by Mansing · 2013-12-31 04:26 · Score: 2

He [Michael Hayden] is currently a principal at the Chertoff Group, a security consultancy co-founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Hayden also serves as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at George Mason University School of Public Policy and was elected to the Board of Directors of Motorola Solutions effective January 4, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general)

Propaganda much? by Roger+Wilcox · 2013-12-31 04:37 · Score: 2

This article is from a mainstream source, USA Today, which might be the most widely circulated periodical in the nation... and this "Hayden" says what?

They'll poll damn well after the next attack

Reacting reflexively to irrational human impulses is not good leadership. What Hayden is talking about is called "taking advantage of the public to further political goals."

there have been no abuses

Bullshit. A flat out lie. Most of the data collection the NSA does is an abuse simply by its nature, and that's ignoring the blatant abuses we already know about.

almost all the court decisions on this program have held that it's constitutional

What? All one out of two cases? Another flat out lie.

This is a propaganda piece, plain and simple. Grease the peons for the next move no matter how toxic the lubrication. Enzensberger said the "consent industry" was the most important of the twentieth century. And so it is in the twenty-first as well.

If you have a brain and a proper education, you will see through this swill immediately. Unfortunately, the nature of the media machine and the ignorance of the masses will mean this story gets eaten up by many of our more gullible brothers. Consider the peons greased.

Saw an interesting report by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 04:46 · Score: 1

I saw a report (don't have the citation on me) that said that TSA screenings have caused more people to drive instead of fly, resulting in 500 more deaths per year.

This guy has lost it by Karmashock · 2013-12-31 04:52 · Score: 1

He's so far down the rabbit hole he doesn't see the sun anymore.

Its too bad. He's so compromised all the oaths he swore to uphold that its frankly irredeemable.

We need to reevaluate everything.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

No abuse and all court cases? by naasking · 2013-12-31 05:00 · Score: 1

What world is this guy living in? Just the other week there were numerous articles documenting pervasive abuse of the surveillance abilities to monitor love interests. Last week a Federal district court judge ruled the surveillance was unconstitutional.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.

Re:NSA vs FBI by bleh-of-the-huns · 2013-12-31 05:05 · Score: 1

Where did I say that, where did I even imply that. My statement was simply about jurisdiction, not about methods.

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped

Want to ask him. by Beer_Smurf · 2013-12-31 06:09 · Score: 1

I would love to ask him if he would be willing to wear a streaming webcam 24/7 since privacy isn't important.

Re:Failure polls well?!? by YumoolaJohn · 2013-12-31 06:31 · Score: 1

Personally, I think the solution is keep the capability

You have already failed.

Gunwalker / Fast and furious... by buck-yar · 2013-12-31 06:44 · Score: 1

So is the NSA former head saying the NSA will allow or create a terrorist attack on citizens to create pro-spying legislation, just like gunwalker / fast and furious was supposed to do?

Cold Hard Reality - Enemy in Arabia by WillAffleckUW · 2013-12-31 07:26 · Score: 1

Look, what they are not admitting to you, but is known by any decent security operative, is that the vast and overwhelming majority of threats are in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.

Most actionable intel has been from those places. As in 95 percent.

None of this should allow them to spy on us and quarter troops in our cell phones and computers in our homes and on our persons. Without a specific and limited warrant.

The tech to read your keyboard and wireless has existed for many many decades. You're only now finding out about it and the backdoor hacks we built into things.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

What problem? You've got to be kidding, Mr. Heyden by SlovakWakko · 2013-12-31 08:05 · Score: 1

How about the problem of the US effectively putting themselves on the other side of the barricade, opposite to the rest of the free world and most of their closest allies?

Some of those recomendations are downright scary. by Jartan · 2013-12-31 08:10 · Score: 1

The commission recommended that the phone companies or a third party take over responsibility for storing the data.

They're just trying to shuffle things. In the process it will most likely become worse.

What's the point of Beta? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 09:29 · Score: 1

McCarthy was right all along.

So it's the old 'the ends justifies the means' argument. That makes it acceptable to drag law-abiding citizens before the committee of un-american activities, deny their second amendment rights and jail them when they stand-up for those rights. There was a movie about it but I forget the title.

McCarthy was a pocket dictator who thought he had a free ride with "OMG look, communists". But when the rest of government tired of his perpetual witch-hunts, he denounced his supporters and the US military.

Comic books were also declared un-american. Was McCarthy right to use the government to magnify what one teenager might do somewhere, sometime?

Part of a trend by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2014-01-01 03:05 · Score: 1

"The NSA used to be very discrete, effective and restrained."

I think you mean discreet... more to the point, the NSA mass surveillance isn't an isolated development. It's part of the general movement to automate or at least remote-control everything, from the way we do research (Google) or send messages (spam) to the way we wage wars (drones) right down to way we compile "friends" or "followers" (Facebook/Twitter). "Liking" something used to be a matter of taste. Now it's a matter of clicking an icon. So, no, I don't think the NSA is entirely to blame.

N.S.A. by Troy+Eckstein · 2014-01-01 05:28 · Score: 1

Not Secret Anymore.

Put Respected Civilians in Charge of the NSA by eyendall5185 · 2014-01-01 05:34 · Score: 1

It is time to purge the military-security establishment and mind-set from the NSA leadership. Bring in civilians with judicial or academic backgrounds to oversee targets and methods. No generals; no politicians.

Re:We have socialized medicine *now* by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-05 15:13 · Score: 1

"... you goddamned moron. What exactly do you think happens when someone shows up at the ER with a life-threatening condition they can't afford to pay for?"

We have a "charitable" hospital "system", which is mostly administered by the States (not the Feds), and which is largely (though certainly not entirely) paid for by charitable donations.

Why do you think so many hospitals in the U.S. are owned and run by church organizations?

Slashdot Mirror

Former Head of NSA Calls For Obama To Reject NSA Commission Recommendations

188 of 316 comments (clear)