Slashdot Mirror
Senator Bernie Sanders Asks NSA If Agency Is Spying On Congress
cold fjord writes with this excerpt from Fox News: "A U.S. senator on Friday pressed the National Security Agency on whether its controversial spying practices extend to monitoring members of Congress. 'Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials?' Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., asked in a letter to NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander released from the senator's office. Sanders, a self-described 'democratic socialist,' defines spying as monitoring the phone calls, emails and internet traffic of elected officials."
The NSA has already shown a willingness to lie to Congress, what does he expect? They're an equal opportunity usurper.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Sorry, chum, your post is showing up as the first one for me. Better luck next time!
It's for their protection. Don't the congressmen need to be safe like the rest of us?
in Federal court, no less.
I mean if they are "exempt" from being spied on it seems logical the "terrorists" would become members of congress and avoid being spied on.
NSA: No
Reality: "censored" (reducted) due to harming security
People's thoughts: 50% true, 50% BS
Result: Nothing happens, business as usual
Don't you mean won't more terrorists become members of congress?
I've debated many 'True Patriots' before. The type of mindset that the NSA probably attracts. A common mode of thought for them is that the US must be protected from all enemies, forign and domestic - and that 'domestic' includes members of congress who support 'un-American' ideas. Democracy is too important to be entrusted to a democratic process.
Sorry bud but you don't know who Bernie Sanders is if you make a comment like that.
And if so I hope they either:
a. Admit it.
b. Deny it then get caught lying about it.
Either way the fallout would be both spectacular and likely productive from a citizen standpoint. If either a or b happens and it gets swept under the rug, then at least we can be certain that the United States is no longer run by the United States government. Sometimes I wonder if I will one day be answering the question, "Where were you when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were permanently suspended?"
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
You may be thinking of Sen. Mitch McConnell.
https://twitter.com/McConnellPress
I just pooped your party.
At the very least, blanket metadata capture means the answer is absolutely, positively, unrepentantly YES.
"Oh no... he found the
He's going to get a scripted statement starting with "we do not directly"..
They are spying on ALL OF US! EVERYONE! Yes yes that includes you mister important congressman... Oh but don't worry! They're only collecting metadata!
So it's ok... And even if it's not ok. You'll give them the ok because you already gave them the ok with your secret court shit!
Welcome to the masses. You are just another target to the NSA...
Gotta make sure those congress members are not terrorists after all. They could do alot of damage to our country!
now that HE might be being spied on he suddenly cares?
Congress has constitutional protection from the executive branch, so spying on them would likely be a major problem, even if spying on the rest of us is "legal". Also, lying to Congress is frowned upon. I think this puts Alexander in a real bind if he has to sign a letter to Congress.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
One of the things Bernie did worth noting is clearly stating what he means as spying:
Part of me thinks he has evidence of them engaging in something like that, much like Wyden asking Clapper about the wholesale collection effort. But with the clarification, and coming in written form, it makes a 'Not Wittingly' answer less liely (granted, Wyden did forewarm Clapper of the question, and did give his office time to change their answer afterwards).
Does the NSA have information on all the kickbacks Congress is getting?
If you're going to give this idiotic organization an unlimited budget with zero oversight you reap what you sow.
Based on what I've been reading, the dragnet collection system collects as much as it can - and then sorts it out later.
So I would argue that some Congressional conversations have been swept into the Big Brother, weather intentional or not.
What would be the advantage an unconstitutional spy organisation would have if it possessed informational leverage over a nation's legislators?
This advantage is far from unprecedented, even in the States. Perhaps J. Edgar tended only to collect information on persons of interest instead of everyone, but he'd have used the interwebs if they were available to him.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Socialist says it all.. --> Of course the NSA spies on commies.
The juxtaposition of your subject and comment says it all
'nuff sad
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
After all, these politicians are well within the "three jumps" connecting them terrorists. Heck, they spend all day in meetings ABOUT terrorists!
who votes along Obama's party line
Which in issues like the NSA is the same as Bush's party line was. Still, keep believing you can score political points by pretending that the R's are better defenders of the 4th Amendment than the D's. I've also got a bridge to sell you.
In an ideal system, the NSA would be by law required to wiretap all public officials and directly publish their communications to the Library of Congress with a daily transcript of "dirty conversations" sent to the FBI and appropriate OIG for human analysis. Given how Congress operates these days, and how successful they've been at pushing back on FBI attempts (post ABSCAM) to reign in congressional corruption, part of me while deeply opposed to what the NSA has been caught doing wants to see the NSA ordered to go Stasi on them.
It seems that this answer to this is a resounding "yes".
The internal logic seems to go something like this-
We are the NSA (true).
We are essential to the defense of this nation (true).
We are the subject matter experts on what it takes to perform this necessary function (true).
People who don't know what we know and who lack our accumulated organizational knowledge as a consequence can't understand the world as it needs to be understood in order for us to be effective.(true)
Any decision we've made with respect to how we should conduct ourselves and any action we've taken is because we think it will best serve the needs of this national security needs of this nation (true).
Conclusion- we would do no wrong and have done no wrong no matter what we've done and any oversight by an entity outside ourselves, including (and especially) politicians or any event which,if made public, would diminish our stature, decrease our funding or increase oversight is a mortal threat (is there any other kind!!?) to the national security of this nation and deserves to be dealt with accordingly by us, without exception (false!)
This is the logic of the computer Hal 9000 in Kubrik's 2001, A Space Odyssey .
Of course we don't spy on Congress. The mere notion would be preposterous. And Bernie, how about that cute 20-something uninhibited hippie chick you have in Bennington that your wife doesn't know about?
I am officially gone from
They promise. *giggle*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Multiple questions never work when you deal with spooks. If the answer to any part of the question is no, then they will simply answer no.
It can be very annoying when you work with spooks. They will look you carefully in the eyes, consider what you asked and and after a few seconds answer with a one liner, that never actually tells you anything.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
More importantly, why is a member of Congress more important that I am? So it is bad to spy on me but REALLY BAD to spy on someone just because they are elected? Fucking elitism at its finest.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
> so spying on them would likely be a major problem
With the current NSA guidelines, as revealed by Edward Snowden's revelations, any communications with foreign nationals would automatically be susceptible to monitoring. So it's certainly a common practice with the pervasive, wholesale telephone and email monitoring currently in place: Congress is _expected_ to speak with foreign governments as part of diplomacy, trade agreements, investigating treaties. and on behalf of foreign families of their constituents.
Whether more targeted monitoring of Congress is done by the NSA is another matter. The NSA's charter specifically forbids them from domestic intelligence, that's the role of the FBI. And for human assets in foreign intelligence, not direct communications monitoring, that's the CIA. But of course, with the new "Homeland Security" overseeing all the group's efforts, the lines have become not only blurred but deliberately concealed. When the responsibilities are deliberately overlapped and merged "to aid communication", it puts the tools of one group for specific uses in the hands of their supervisors who may have quite different agendas or guidelines. I'd look very, very carefully look at "Homeland Security", at the people who are expecte merge and organize the data and precisely what they are ordering or being allowed access to.
They've managed to keep out of most of this NSA exposure. But as an "organizing" agency for all the other departments, they're in a very dangerous position to weave those threads together into a much tighter cocoon of monitoring at every level.
Maybe we can have FBI agents spying on CIA... CIA spying on NSA and NSA spying on FBI
It assumes that being a senator should have a benefits. They are supposed to be representing their constituents, not gathering special privileges for themselves. If they are not living in the system they are creating, all hope is lost. So, anyone still hopeful?
A member of Congress or the Senate on a day to day basis will deal with 100x the sensitive material you will. Furthermore there's the question of who gets access to the records & can they abuse it to blackmail govt. officials or otherwise effect policy decisions.
So yes you are not a special snowflake.
The NSA isn't spying on them to get that information. My point still stands, the NSA shouldn't be spying on anyone without a valid warrant signed by a judge, just as the constitution clearly states. That they are elected doesn't make them better than you or I, and their outrage should be the same regardless of who is being spied upon without a warrant.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
People with power in the government need to be considered differently, because the power that they hold can be corrupted through blackmail.
If Harry Reid is caught with sucking the toe of his dominitrix, he could be blackmailed into telling the truth about something. If you are caught, at best they can embarrass you in front of your friends, acquaintances, and family.
A long time ago when I was in the military, I found out about a little tidbit of information. You see, sometimes congressmen go on "official trips" and they are reimbursed in full for all expenses they incur related to that trip. And sometimes, said congressmen are accompanied by members of the military. Well, the military members were not reimbursed for all their expenses and had to pay out of pocket for some items. Well, the congressmen saw the military members spending money above and beyond what they would have if they weren't on the trip and thought that was unfair. So a new law was passed. And now the military members are reimbursed in full ... provided they're on a TDY escorting congressmen.....Mind, the members of the military go on many TDY assignments and escorting congressmen is just one of them. But only TDY assignments for escorting congressmen are reimbursed in full.
And that question seems to have the context of "It's OK to spy on the general public. But it's not OK to spy on congressmen".Somewhat like the many laws we have on the books that specifically exclude congressmen.
He might want to ask Edward Snowden. If he really wants to know.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Still, keep believing you can score political points by pretending that the R's are better defenders of the 4th Amendment than the D's.
Which is why we need to take as much power as possible away from ALL of them. Call the Conservative's bluff: radically trim away the power of Federal Government. We can start by heavily trimming the budgets of the acronym agencies (DOD, EPA, OSHA, FDA, CIA, NSA, etc.)
So yes, spying on anyone without a warrant is bad, but spying on government officials is worse.
How could someone be both a terrorist and a member of Congress? One of them has nothing but contempt and hatred for the values of the US and wants to sabotage the nation's prosperity and standing in the world while using fear to manipulate its citizens for their own political ends and actively works to undermine fundamental constitutional principles. The other engages in terrorism.
As the British journalist Claud Cockburn famously put it, "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied." We need those responsible to testify under oath on public record. We need their exact words. We need to hear how they deliberately mislead the public and congress with semantic games and outright lies... caught it the act, as it were.
But then our political leaders do the exact same thing all the time and usually get away with it too. So much for exemplary leadership and governance. I think Armando Iannucci "gets it" better than any comedian at the moment. Check out "The Thick of It" (UK TV show), "In The Loop" (film), and "Veep" (US TV show).
Senator, I am sorry, your question doesn't make sense. The NSA doesn't do any spying on Americans, we just collect meta-data about your computer, phone, and US mail. We also control the worlds largest bot-net that screws with peoples computers to allow us to collect even more meta-data. As we have stated previously, meta-data is NOT data and all of our hacking is done from outside the US so it is perfectly legal. Thank you Senator for ill framed question.
More importantly, why is a member of Congress more important that I am? So it is bad to spy on me but REALLY BAD to spy on someone just because they are elected? Fucking elitism at its finest.
Because he has more power and influence. That's what important means.
According to the FISA courts, all warrants are valid by virtue of having been issued by the government for an alleged national security purpose.
He should have asked:
"Have you stopped spying on Congress?"
Senator Dianne Feinstein was a target during the Bush administration warrantless surveillance program, along with Barack Obama before he was even elected to the Senate back in 2003-2004. NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice came out with those new revelations and information on more black ops abuses June 2013. He also claims they were targeting people with space weapons and satellites, which is the NSA's speciality anyway..
Details can be siphoned through here: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html
And the NSA's response was:
"Uh... nooooooo?"
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I assume this is clear- he's trying ot entrap them, as when Wyden forced Clapper to lie. Wyden KNEW the truthful answer to his question already, he was just forcing Clapper to lie before Congress.\
Same thing here, for sure . We can take from this that the NSA spies on Congress. Snowden has a story about it spying on Obama when he was a senator. Maybe a leak is coming about this and the Senators are preparing the ground ...
Yes, let the NSA spy on Congressweasels, but only if their findings are made public. I want to know who my "representatives" have been meeting with, what was said, and why they're really going to vote a certain way.
OTOH this still runs into a who-watches-the-watchers problem, because how do we know that NSA will release everything and not hold back to get a vote to go a certain way? Hmm.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
now that HE might be being spied on he suddenly cares?
Congress has constitutional protection from the executive branch, so spying on them would likely be a major problem, even if spying on the rest of us is "legal". Also, lying to Congress is frowned upon.
Not any more. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, head of the Department of "Justice has repeatedly lied under oath to congress about his "fast and furious" illegal arms trafficking, with what result? He got some extra payments in order to investigate himself and let himself off with a grease of the palm.
Clapper lied to congress, being fully prepared, Alexander is constantly equivocating to a degree indistinguishable from lying (if the goal is to mislead his enemies, namely the U.S. congress and the American people, then where is the actual difference to lying?). Did anybody in congress actually complain? No, they are all gobbling it up like the little lapdogs they are.
The NSA isn't spying on them to get that information.
And you know that how? As Daemonik noted, even if they get important information by accident rather than intent, it doesn't mean that they can't use that to influence legislation for the benefit of themselves and clients.
If this turns out to be a set up question for another Snowden release (like when German Chancellor Merkel called President Obama to ask whether the NSA had been spying on her only to have Snowden release that very information within a couple of days), it won't look good for the NSA.
And if not, why not?
We have pledged to oppose all enemies of the United States, foreign and domestic. First and foremost, that's you and your associates, Bernie.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Why is the drug trade still booming, and insider trading, organised crime still operating? You would think if this universal monitoring is happening and is effective the police would be far more effective than they actually are.
This ladies and gentlemen is Enemy of the State (1998) moment. Straw that could break camels back. Realization that a tool you used to fight your enemies suddenly has more power than you.
http://youtu.be/sg8T1zKKrXM?t=1h46m39s
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
as if the NSA would filter out congress.
as if congress does understand reality....
People with power in the government need to be considered differently...
That's right. Every one of them should have a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. If we have a right to spy on anyone, it would be those in positions of power. Authority should always be treated in an adversarial manner.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's past that.
We need a public dump of the NSA files on Congress, the last 10 executive branches (including candidates, associates and aids; especially the associates that never took an official post), federal judiciary, press and banking.
Once we see what they've been blackmailed with, we can start over with new congresspeople, executive branch, judiciary, press and banking.
I have no hope of this happening.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think the Bernie's intention was to make congress aware that the very laws they were passing also allowed their own rights to be lessened. I would bet that the NSA and others spy more on members of congress and the judiciary than they do of almost all other citizens. For example a corrupted or coerced judge could easily keep a serious terrorist from being convicted. These judges could even over ride a jury and declare a person not guilty locking them out of any future trials. Some of the too big to fail boys may have owned quite a few people in the legal channels.
Then there's a chance, admittedly very small, that congress might actually do the right thing and put some restraints on them. (More likely, they just make it illegal to spy on congress but everybody else is ok.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Have gnu, will travel.
For example a corrupted or coerced judge could easily keep a serious terrorist from being convicted.
You're living in fantasy land.
To a first approximation there are no terrorists.
A corrupt judge that the NSA has the drop on could be used to convict anyone they want to convict.
While it is not likely these are good people, officials in these government positions are TRAPPED by their jobs.
If they do the right thing, they end up in the same position as Snowden with the whole corrupt powerful establishment against them (plus the suckers) and if they serve the establishment (where they have a successful history) then they go on public record as liars. As far as legal consequences, almost nothing happens to them for lying to congress; in addition, that can be greatly mitigated by telling the truth in secret hearings... so they are technically not lying to congress (just most of congress, in public.)
It is grandstanding but mostly it's political posturing by Sanders, so later the public will see them as liars who can't be trusted with the power they have taken (arguably given.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I mean if they are "exempt" from being spied on it seems logical the "terrorists" would become members of congress and avoid being spied on.
So you watched Homeland too?
McCarthy was, on the whole, quite right about the existence of the problem of communist infiltration of american institutions.
Yeah, look at that Bernie Sanders guy - he even admits to being a Socialist!
The source link may not be so great, it does bring up a lot of true information that can be confirmed elsewhere. There are other leakers who have given us HUGE leaks over the years that have not gotten enough attention or people simply forgot
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
[Russel Tice] also claims they were targeting people with space weapons and satellites, which is the NSA's speciality anyway..
Details can be siphoned through here: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html
Space Weapons?
Follow the link - this is grade-A madness.
(Or a NSA disinformation campaign to make all whistleblowers look like kooks).
Obviously members of congress are more important.....to themselves.
Just like you care mainly about yourself in your comment.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Obviously, congresscritters have access and power over things that matter in this country (even if recent history says they don't act on it). Your email from your ex claiming you don't know how to emotionally get involved or your daily email from groupon aren't at all interesting, even in the aggregate.
Sensitive material should never be discussed on the phone or via email. The internet is an unclassified communications medium. If you want/need to handle classified materials you offline encrypt and send that.
More importantly, why is a member of Congress more important that I am? So it is bad to spy on me but REALLY BAD to spy on someone just because they are elected? Fucking elitism at its finest.
This isn't elitism - that's stuff like free primo parking spaces at the DC airport. This is about compromising their job. They are our representatives. When the NSA spies on one of them, they are spying on all of their constituents and undermining the most fundamental American value - democracy.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
...isn't congress (supposed to be) made up of regular ordinary US citizens? Hasn't a federal judge ruled that the NSA's spying techniques are legal? So what's the news here?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
According the the NSA the NSA doesn't even know exactly what data they are collecting on anyone.
Well, then maybe they should spy on themselves once in a while?
No, now that *you* might be spied on you suddenly care about what Bernie Sanders has been working on.
What is the president's clearance? If the president walked into the NSA and said "open all your files" would they? Could they? Since that's likely more than any one person could make it through, what about presidential aids? At this point, the only peaceful solution I see is if we elect a complete outsider, like Jesse Ventura, who then goes through agencies one at a time and pulls out their darkest secrets.
Learn to love Alaska
And? That does not justify infringing upon people's rights and discarding our values to stop them.
No, he wasn't. He didn't aim for foreign spies (the ones that did real harm) but instead popular sympathizers. If you were a popular figure (musician, teacher, actor) and supported worker's rights, you were an enemy of the state. If you were a Russian national working on the atomic bomb and selling secrets to the Russians, that was someone else's problem. That's the real failure of McCarthy. He couldn't see the spies for the communists.
Learn to love Alaska
"He didn't aim for foreign spies (the ones that did real harm) but instead popular sympathizers."
Those popular sympathizers that were part of (pre-)KGB-funded organizations, and thus agents of an antagonistic foreign power, were legitimate targets of inquiry & publicity. (I don't wish to condone all the details & methods.)
Parties break the Constitution. The intent was to have the President and Congress fighting each other. If congress passes a law the president doesn't like, it doesn't get enforced. If the judiciary or people don't like it, it fails in court. The default was to question every act by every other branch. Selective laws, and selective enforcement of them was a good thing. It makes for a smaller government. "We aren't enforcing those laws this year" is sufficient to make it so, and results in a smaller government with more power to the people.
But with parties, you get political appointements to judiciary and with the same party in President and Congress, you have insufficient contention between the two. Change the system to be less party-favorable, and many of our problems will decrease, possibly go away. But those with the power to do so are already in a party. So it won't happen until a single 3rd party exceeds the power of the other two. Or, "never".
Learn to love Alaska
So free speech should be crushed, if you don't like the message or messenger? I disagree.
Learn to love Alaska
"So free speech should be crushed"
I didn't say that, nor did McCarthy.
Except that the public inquiry and publicity crushed their careers and lives in general. Ask anybody who was on the Hollywood blacklist for expressing their political views.
Those who were agents of an enemy don't deserve that much sympathy.
The constitution isn't broken.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They would open the president's first (to the press) and he knows it.
Jesse Ventura might not care.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
More importantly, why is a member of Congress more important that I am?
While I tend to agree with that sentiment in principal, illegal spying on people of power is in fact a huge problem for all of us...having "dirt" on everyone was a big part of what kept an insane fucking megalomaniac like J. Edgar Hoover in a position of unspeakable power for so long. We sure don't need more of that.
The next Snowden release will probably show proof of NSA spying on congress. Mainly if the NSA says, "No, we don't spy on congress"
Be seeing you...
Any time the government publicly declares that you can't talk about something or they will arrest you, that idea becomes widespread. This happens because those who support the idea can lie, and those who know the truth can't object or debate the matter. Since mccarthy the USA has adopted a great many Communist ideas like massive government bailouts of key industries, government subsidies of profitable industries, special rules for their friends, free speech zones, warrant-less spying, abducting people and holding them without trial- and much more.
No, Fox News. It's similar, but somewhat less realistic.
If you find the need to use jargon to mentally segregate anyone who doesn't share your specific ideology, you just might be a zealot.
Some folks trust too much
Woe if one is a statesman
Shame on you, Vermont
So free speech should be crushed.
"So free speech should be crushed"
I didn't say that, nor did McCarthy. Again.
Since mccarthy the USA has adopted a great many Communist ideas like massive government bailouts of key industries, government subsidies of profitable industries, special rules for their friends, free speech zones, warrant-less spying, abducting people and holding them without trial- and much more.
You are a certifiable fruitcake.
Please report to your local de-raisinificating center before you hurt yourself.
The NSA isn't spying on them to get that information. My point still stands, the NSA shouldn't be spying on anyone without a valid warrant signed by a judge, just as the constitution clearly states. That they are elected doesn't make them better than you or I, and their outrage should be the same regardless of who is being spied upon without a warrant.
the NSA shouldn't be spying on anyone domestically without a valid warrant signed by a judge, just as the constitution clearly states.
FTFY... NSA is US DOD, it is also use of military force on the people.
Somewhere along the line I think the application of the 16th amendment has escaped you.
you still got no proof. noob.
Be aware that I have a pretty vocal amount of gangstalkers, and the NSA pays people to spread misinformation on their behalf. Anything you read about on Slashdot is going to be with gangstalker influence.
There's one dude who has spammed over 50+ email messages, and replies to various posts here "trolling" me and telling me to "take my meds and shit".
He's pure troll, like the dudes who used to post goatse links and shit on here for fun amongst the legit comments, or for first post. lol
Typically not because they are supposed to set policy not run operations. Nearly all of what they deal with is information that can be obtained by the public at short notice, and most of the rest is obtainable after a time.
So many of the readers here who deal with trade secrets, confidential financial information, business plans, operational military matters or medical information are special snowflakes in comparison.
These elected officials are not a nobility to be bowed to but citizens doing a job. Imbuing them with the mystique of hereditary aristocrats ruling by divine right is stepping back a few centuries.
That's why the anti-freedom always go after gays, drug users, or other "undesirables" when taking away speech. The government ruining someone's life over speech (even if jail time isn't involved) is an abridgment of free speech. That you didn't like the targeted group doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Learn to love Alaska
You said that those exercising free speech in a manner you don't like deserve no sympathy. I see an equivalence between your statements in defense of persecuting people for associating with "undesirables" and speaking and the person who indicated you have an anti-free-speech stance.
That you don't like your opinion re-stated in a more clear manner indicates a problem with your opinion, not the restatement of it.
Learn to love Alaska
Then elect Donald Trump. He'd be proud of it. 5+ bankruptcies and still campaigns to remove the ability of "poor" people to bankruptcy themselves out of a bad investment. It takes some serious chutzpah to use something so trivially and still work so hard to prevent others from using it.
On the plus side, someone's dirty laundry being aired as the precursor of a cover-up may backfire on the NSA. It would prove they are gathering all sorts of stuff to blackmail with, and the blackmail would be a bigger issue that the president's mistress or illegitimate son. So long as the president isn't having an affair with Hillary. That would be, well, unacceptable.
Learn to love Alaska
That it can be violated so often and so trivially indicates it is broken.
Learn to love Alaska
There's nothing that can be done to stop that if the people aren't paying attention (or don't care).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So you are asserting that the checks and balances are being used as intended?
Learn to love Alaska
Or did another/other member(s) of Congress put it into his head out of fear that Congress' insider trading, graft, legislation-written-directly-by-special-interests, and so on is actually all on NSA hard drives somewhere?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Mostly. We haven't had any president go with runaway power like the founding fathers feared (like Julius Cesar).
We've had presidents that took a lot of power, like Andrew Jackson, but then sometimes power has gone the other way, like under Andrew Johnson.
Once again though, if the people aren't paying attention, the rest doesn't matter, as happened in many latin american countries throughout history.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
To a first approximation there are no terrorists.
Not really. It depends on where you are.
Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq
Terrorists are not static, and can move from country to country. It is common for terrorists in one country to be part of a plan to attack another country. One of the terrorist cells that attacked the US on 9/11 was from Frankfurt, Germany. Al Qaida eventually ended up fleeing Iraq back around 2007-2009 due to the effectiveness of US forces in combating them. One of the places they fled was Afghanistan, which is why it heated up again so much. Now they are concentrating in Syria, and moving into Iraq again with ugly results.
You should also recognize that many people have been arrested and convicted of terrorism related offenses in the US, Canada, and Europe since 9/11. There have been hundreds in the US alone.
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
So free speech should be crushed, if you don't like the message or messenger? I disagree.
So what are your thoughts about the German American Bund? Would you have backed unlimited speech and rights or organize during WW2 even while the US was fighting Nazi Germany?
And the "American" Communists? They took orders from Moscow, supported the violent overthrow of the American government, and spied on American, even while the true horrors of Soviet Communism, secret police and all, were becoming known during the Cold War as communism made bloody advances from country to country.
Beyond those branches of the progressive movement, do you truly back free speech for even the right, and Republicans?
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
The Communist party wasn't simply exercising speech, but was taking orders from Moscow, organizing, spying, and generally engaged in subversive activities aimed at the overthrow of the US government.
The problem isn't really his statements so much as your passing over in silence the activities of the communist party. You distort the record.
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
According to the FISA courts, all warrants are valid by virtue of having been issued by the government for an alleged national security purpose.
The constitution specifically says and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What is the president's clearance? If the president walked into the NSA and said "open all your files" would they? Could they? Since that's likely more than any one person could make it through, what about presidential aids?
The president is the executive. If he walked into the NSA and said "open all your files", they could tell him no -- we can't allow that.
The president could then go back to the whitehouse, and draft and sign a presidential order requiring the NSA to deliver all their files to his office in a timely manner. The order could also effect the immediate firing of a bunch of people in the NSA office, including whoever personally refused the president's request.
The order would then be effective, having the full power of the executive branch of government behind it. The NSA being part of the executive branch, has to adhere to any order of the president: otherwise, they are now rogue, and law enforcement, or military forces could be used to enforce compliance
The catch-22 is that if the guy at the top knows everything and he turns out to be a Russian mole (this has happened several times to the US), you just lost the game.
The guy at the top could and should know everything that the people in the agency are doing. He/she should not be aware of the content of all the communications.
Likewise, everyone in the NSA who has access to significant information, should be under continuous surveillance, regarding their movements at all times --- tailed and monitored whenever outside the NSA building: and particularly, any and all communications made with their personal electronic devices or their friends' electronic devices when not working or when outside the NSA building.
When inside the NSA building; all electronic and other communications monitored as well.
Simply put...... for anyone in charge of the NSA; sacrificing all privacy should be a mandatory job requirement.
With the current NSA guidelines, as revealed by Edward Snowden's revelations, any communications with foreign nationals would automatically be susceptible to monitoring.
P.S. "Foreign" has been redefined to mean, anyone outside the borders of a small patch of ground in Washington D.C.
I mean if they are "exempt" from being spied on it seems logical the "terrorists" would become members of congress and avoid being spied on.
Not only that... if the terrorists become congress members... they can effect legal terrorism against the American people: for example, passing destructive laws, such as massive tax increases, banning consumer products, or conduct economically crippling activities such as getting the minimum wage increased, and instituting catastrophic healthcare laws.
To a first approximation there are no terrorists.
You should also recognize that many people have been arrested and convicted of terrorism related offenses in the US, Canada, and Europe since 9/11. There have been hundreds in the US alone.
My point exactly.
"The government ruining someone's life over speech"
Agreed, for but only for different values of "ruining". Merely publishing non-libelous information about such conspiracies likely would not count as that. (An outcome limited to some people not wanting to purchase things from - blacklisting - foreign agents is not "ruining ... life".)
radar, look at my posts going way back to the late 90s, Ive been saying it forever.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Publishing a factual account with the intent to harm is illegal in most countries, and some places in the US. It is the intent to harm that is the problem. The government intending to harm someone over assembly of speech is unconstitutional, even if they publish the account as a factual account.
Learn to love Alaska
Let's see.. answering "yes" gets them in the doghouse, pronto... answering "bo" gets then a federal contempt charge... Yup.. Doghouse, as any husband will tell you, anyday ;-)
They were prosecuted by the US government for thought crimes. Nothing more. If you disagree, prove me wrong. Show me one person investigated by McCarthy in the trials who was noteworthy and performed any *action* of espionage. I wasn't around then, but everything that I've read about it made it seem like a witch-hunt designed to convict people by guilt by association. If that's wrong, correct me. If that's not provably wrong, then there's nothing you can say.
You distort the record.
McCarthy didn't like the Communist Party, so he threw the weight of the US government behind persecuting (not prosecuting) anyone who associated with them, without regard to any actions taken by those people for or against the US. I distort nothing. You are distorting the record. The investigations weren't into any alleged illegal actions by the Communist Party, but a witch hunt to persecute anyone associated with it. I've been a member of the Democratic Party, Republican Party and Libertarian Party. I'm not responsible for the source of funding for all of them. If one of them took payment from China, and received orders from China, why should I be persecuted because I signed a vote roll once for that party?
Learn to love Alaska
A fair question. You have to look at the potential harm. The 1/40,000/year LOVEINT at NSA is, in the grander scheme of things, a relatively limited privacy invasion. There aren't any reports of actual identity theft, or other more serious harm, for example. On the other hand, there have been quite a number of terrorist plots that could have killed or wounded hundreds or even thousands per attack. The Boston Marathon attack was a minor plot and it cost about 17 people their limbs, killed others, and wounded many more. It was a significant disruption to a major cultural event for the city, and disruptive overall. You only have to look at the recent Volgograd attacks for another example, and even those were far smaller than a number of plots in the US. Just last month there was an attempted suicide car bomb attack at an airport in Kansas. That could have easily killed a hundred or more people. That really isn't the same sneaking a look at someone's love letter. Another thing to keep in mind is that a string of "successful" attacks would serve as a recruiting tool, and there would be more people volunteering for such attacks.
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
Beyond those branches of the progressive movement, do you truly back free speech for even the right, and Republicans?
I have been a registered Republican. I'm not sure why you are bringing in party into this. What have I said that's incompatible with the Republican stance? I should be a bigoted prick if I'm a Republican? Maybe that's why I'm not longer a registered Republican. I'm more libertarian than anything else, and the government should go after *actions*, not thoughts. They didn't. They went after thoughts, because thoughts are scary. Someone could be having one. Right now. And we wouldn't know. Ban them. Ban them all.
Learn to love Alaska
Publicizing that someone was red in the 50s was not unlike publicizing that they are racist today. In both cases; because their exists a minority with strongly held opinions that were/are generally unacceptable.
Is Jesse Jackson the new McCarthy? Has David Duke been blacklisted?
What's the difference?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
NSA wouldn't issue a press release with the presidents file.
It would fall into the hands of a friendly member of the press, who would never give up their source.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As the order is being drafted; Fox news/MSNBC breaks a scandal. The president's dirt hits the airwaves. Ultimately he sinks without a bubble.
It might work, if the president wasn't crooked. The system will never allow an honest man to be elected dogcatcher, much less any federal office.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm convinced Obama has used the services of the NSA to find out where individual congressmen stand on different issues. This is a violation of the separation of powers.
Sort of like plane crashes then? Should airlines stop taking measures against those?
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
As the order is being drafted; Fox news/MSNBC breaks a scandal. The president's dirt hits the airwaves. Ultimately he sinks without a bubble.
Well, the president could very well anticipate that and draft the order without warning; it could include provisions appointing a new overseer the president trusts explicitly, and a "lockdown" of all NSA offices and facilities (unplugging the fiber --- temporary shutdown of outgoing communications, and all the infrastructure and access by any employee required to get any data out of the NSA's facilities, except to the president).
Doesn't matter if there is any blackmail material on the president; if by presidential order, there is no means to export such dirt.
Sort of like plane crashes then? Should airlines stop taking measures against those?
The way we deal with plane crashes is by finding out what went wrong and taking measures to avoid the same problem in the future.
The way we deal with "terrorists" is by having FBI agents giving people marzipan and then arresting them for bomb plots.
If you can't see the difference you're an idiot.
(Ah, I'm replying to cold fjord - who's the idiot),
It does not matter WHO says the truth or if they are wrong 99% of the time.
One shouldn't brainlessly discredit a source simply because you don't like something they said and reliable sources you do like shouldn't be mindlessly believed either.
The benefit of people who are extreme or go beyond what you and I consider "reasonable" is that they are usually quite MOTIVATED to do a lot of the labor for you. Their conclusions could be insane but their labor doesn't have to be entirely useless all that supporting evidence could be solid or just 1 or 2 items flawed (it's the end conclusions where the big errors happen.) I saw plenty of good information gathered by the author of that one webpage (the rest the site has some crazy shit) and while it builds towards some nutty sounding stuff but that doesn't discredit the collection of former NSA agent's interviews or related Daily Show clips etc.
Sure some claims are beyond reasonable or even mentally "off balance" but it is still a relative judgement call for ignorant people listening to something they don't want to believe. Remember all the cranks saying upsetting things about the CIA, NSA, State Dept, Iraq war, Echelon, "detainee" "abuse", corruption, etc? Turns out they were correct... some were wrong about most everything else and others were 100% correct the whole time - but we treat both with no respect and lump them together... instead we trust our news media who got it all wrong up until it was undeniable. The cult of personality has a basis in irrational human behavior; don't fall into other forms of it.
This is especially important to note as that linked page focuses around NSA leaker Russell Tice who only had his word and reputation with zero hard evidence trying to stir up some real congressional oversight. The government smeared him and then people like yourself had an easy way out so you didn't have to consider the upsetting things he was saying. He was a "nut" so anything he said you didn't like was easily ignored... back 5+ years ago. Government is guilty until proven innocent; that precept is why we have term limits, separation of powers, democracy, a free press, free speech, etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
And the president wouldn't have the political sense to point the finger at the NSA?
Learn to love Alaska
David Duke wasn't blacklisted. He was an actual leader in the KKK, and refused to answer reasonable questions about his involvement and actions related to that, and people running for office are expected to be more open than that, so he lost that, and later elections. I haven't followed him since, but I've been a hiring manager and never saw his name on the "do not hire" list (and yes, there was an official one, mainly containing the names of former employees who left under less than ideal circumstances).
Note that the backlash from some of that against Democrats who voted for something racist back in the '50s/60s didn't seem to kill any careers, though did get some more firm denouncements of past beliefs/actions. Unlike the Republicans with a similar past, who seem more likely to stand by it, as if they are infallible, and if they ever did do something, it *must* be right.
Learn to love Alaska
So 'blacklisting' actual members of the American Communist Party (ACP) was fine?
Communists were/are as bad as KKK members! They certainly killed more people.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You are very trusting and completely wrong.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Would that matter? Remember the information the NSA will release is true.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
KKK members weren't blacklisted, yet your response is the same as if I has said so. As your response is unrelated to mine, I can only presume you are not discussing anything, but simply lecturing me because my opinion is different than yours, so I need re-education.
Do you have a cite for the ACP killing more than the KKK? "Certainly" as if it should be common knowledge. Yet I can't find a single instance of a mob-style attack where the members all knew what they were there for (a lynching or whatever). There are some cases of directed attacks done by a trained operative that was "linked" to them. But in your analogy, we should fear all Irish because the IRA existed. Being a member of a group doesn't indicate condonement of all actions of said group.
Learn to love Alaska
Unverified information with no sources might not be as damning as you assert.
Learn to love Alaska
All I know is this:
If 'ol Bernie wasn't being spied on before (unlikely), he definitely is now.
You made a distinction without a difference, I ignored it. KKK members with good PR would call it blacklisting. 'Public' bigots are as unemployable as reds ever were.
ACP was funded by Stalin and successors. (KGB archives.) They don't get to claim independence now that it has been disproven.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Most of Congress does not care. At all. Bring up spying on Americans, they roll their eyes and go to lunch.
however, point out that they are *GASP* spying on Congress, and all the sudden that 3 martini lunch on top of your latest intern last week is a burning concern, and the NSA must be stopped!
Al Qaida eventually ended up fleeing Iraq back around 2007-2009 due to the effectiveness of US forces in combating them.
I'm no fan of Saddam but he ran a secular regime and despite what Fox news claims, he kept AQ out of Iraq throughout the 80's and 90's. So if you accept that the US rid Iraq of AQ then you must also accept that US were just fixing the "power vacuum" problem they caused. Probably on day three of the war when they sacked the entire Iraqi public service (cops, teachers, firemen, paramedics, etc) and allowed looters and anarchy to reign free the next day.
Personally I think the reason Fallujah was raped so harshly was because an angry mob killed some US soldiers and put their mutilated bodies on public display, it was a brazen and bloody act of defiance against the US. The entire city was subsequently punished to clearly demonstrate who is in control and the vengeance that will be delivered if you fuck with them, how that is morally different to Saddam "punishing the Kurds" is not clear to me.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.