NSA Wiretapping and Snowden on the run

[Type Username Here]

Two party system poison.

 

[Kid McNamara]

The illegality occurs with that pesky little thing called the Constitution and the 4th Amendment. Just because laws are passed does not mean they are constitutional. Here's a 2001 memo from the NSA asking congress to rethink the 4th Amendment.

Right, but your previous argument referred to U.S. Code. I see you're off that now though (wise choice). Thanks for the memo, been known about the whole saga though.

This journalist you're speaking of is a well known Constitutional Lawyer. There is a multitude of Constitutional Lawyers who see these activities as unlawful. Also, that "it has been around a number of years" argument is nonsense. What role does that play?

It's like saying the Pentagon Papers weren't valid because we had a presence in Vietnam since the 50s.

He absolutely is, that is my point. He is a constitutional lawyer and still has yet to actual bring an legal argument against what the NSA is doing. He presented the story and admitted as much. The "outrage" he, and others, display is based on making false assertions about what NSA personnel may or may not be doing with the data. The outrage is not based on any cited cases of abuse with this, or other similar programs. If his story had been based on institutional corruption, it would have been a lot bigger and heads would be rolling as a result.

Joe Biden disagrees with you. I'm sure he had more information back then, and was vocal because it wasn't his party doing it.

Second time you have mentioned this. Joe Biden is a politician and you are saying as much. Furthermore, I've already addressed this. He claimed "two statutes." I asked you to name them, you said he was being "vague" and attempted to cite one of the statutes he "may have been" referring to. I invited you read the definitions and respond to that. Instead, you're going back to the same Biden political talking points from the oughts. Further, does Joe Biden know more about the law in general? Certainly. Does he know more about this particular issue? Doubtful. He gets his highly politicized talking points from a group of interns or staffers. Dude is not sitting around parsing bills embedding himself in the cyber-intelligence community.

Protocols? What happened with the protocols when it came to torture and black sites? That was somehow made legal because John Yoo wrote a memo? Again, you can question my credentials but don't act like there aren't people much more qualified to speak on the constitutionality of these matters than you. There is a large consensus that these activities are illegal.

So we were rounding up large numbers of Americans and shipping them out to blacksites? We are not discussing blacksites and torture. This is a separate and unique issue. I know you are attempting to show a pattern of abuse, but it does not hold.

It seems you thought you made some point here but it didn't translate as that.

Simply pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. You're claiming that the NSA is capable of monitoring and policing the world but incapable of doing so to their own analysts? This makes no sense.

But your last statement pretty much sums up the whole of this "scandal" and those who are making a huge deal out of the "abuse." You all believe a point is being made, yet, nothing has been said.

Someone please give me an argument here.

 

[Type Username Here]

Right, but your previous argument referred to U.S. Code. I see you're off that now though (wise choice). Thanks for the memo, been known about the whole saga though.

My previous argument did not refer to the US Code. You asked for the statutes that Biden was referring to and I did not know. My issue, and the issue with others who are against this has ALWAYS been a constitutional matter. Even in Biden clips he says it is a constitutional issue.

He absolutely is, that is my point. He is a constitutional lawyer and still has yet to actual bring an legal argument against what the NSA is doing. He presented the story and admitted as much.

The legal argument is Constitutionally based clown. It has ALWAYS been that. The man wrote three damn books before Obama was even President using the constitution as his legal argument. You are being either naive or dishonest.

The "outrage" he, and others, display is based on making false assertions about what NSA personnel may or may not be doing with the data. The outrage is not based on any cited cases of abuse with this, or other similar programs. If his story had been based on institutional corruption, it would have been a lot bigger and heads would be rolling as a result.

Again, the wrong doing is because the 4th Amendment is being violated in every single way. It's why the NSA challenged Congress to amend the 4th Amendment in 2001, something you already supposedly knew.

Second time you have mentioned this. Joe Biden is a politician and you are saying as much. Furthermore, I've already addressed this. He claimed "two statutes." I asked you to name them, you said he was being "vague" and attempted to cite one of the statutes he "may have been" referring to.

The point of the Biden video was to:

a)Point out that Biden helped draft FISA, the same document that you claim as a valid legal recourse

b)that a dragnet of collecting broad information is unconstitutional

c) that these patterns and meta data are very intrusive

I invited you read the definitions and respond to that. Instead, you're going back to the same Biden political talking points from the oughts. Further, does Joe Biden know more about the law in general? Certainly. Does he know more about this particular issue? Doubtful. He gets his highly politicized talking points from a group of interns or staffers. Dude is not sitting around parsing bills embedding himself in the cyber-intelligence community.

Yet here we are and you're pointing to a law that he helped draft as an excuse to violate the consitutiton. Yet here you are pretending that you have more information than a ranking committee member of the Judiciary committee.

So we were rounding up large numbers of Americans and shipping them out to blacksites? We are not discussing blacksites and torture. This is a separate and unique issue. I know you are attempting to show a pattern of abuse, but it does not hold.

No it isn't. Those were unconstitutional actions made "legal" by career political lawyers working at the behest of their bosses to write memos.

Simply pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. You're claiming that the NSA is capable of monitoring and policing the world but incapable of doing so to their own analysts? This makes no sense.

Again, this makes NO sense. What point are you trying to make? It is not coming across as you are expecting it to. They are conducting illegal searches. If a LEO goes into 100 houses without a warrant, and comes up with nothing or does not find anything, it doesn't change the fact that he violated the law in the first place.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Russ Feingold called this bullshyt out when he was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 and as one of only a handful of Senators who voted against re-authorizing it in 2006 (and Obama was not one of them). So of course Russ is not in office anymore:
Senate Session - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[newworldafro]

1) Yall forgetting this piffery right here........ ......................... this shiit wild yall .... this from a year ago ........ CIA Chief: We'll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher | Danger Room | Wired.com



2) Neal Cavuto on Fox on his "Alex Jones" ranting steeze ..... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YULrWM6N0zg"]Neil Cavuto GOES OFF, Cuts Guest's Mic: Drop The Liberal Thing & Focus On The Reality Thing - YouTube[/ame]


3) So what are our favorite black politicians and pundits saying about this?????

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Too late brother. It has already begun.

Some are calling him a Chinese spy. Some are saying he did it to bring down a black president.

I've seen tweets where people want to charge him and Greenwald with treason.

Alan Moore was right all along. We DESERVE this.

I wouldn't go so far as to say what he did was treasonous...YET.....but what he did was unlawful and he should be criminally charged.

 

[Type Username Here]

I wouldn't go so far as to say what he did was treasonous...YET.....but what he did was unlawful and he should be criminally charged.

Agreed but let's remember that blacks who tried to drink from certain fountains or use certain facilities were committing unlawful acts once upon a time.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

 

[gho3st]

They gave this dumb ass the keys to the most powerful program in the NSA!?!? They deserve to get snitched on... Idiots.

Not only that dude talked his way out of a 200K a year paycheck . It aint like the NSA is going to stop spying on people.

 

[Type Username Here]

I just realized something beautiful: these politicians and high-ranking military personel don't know how to do the technical work in this "war". They will have to rely on common people with knowledge on how to develop algorithms, data mine, process server information, "hack", design viruses. People who are educated and possess critical thinking skills.

Now I understand what Greenwald was hinting at earlier.

 

[No1]

I just realized something beautiful: these politicians and high-ranking military personel don't know how to do the technical work in this "war". They will have to rely on common people with knowledge on how to develop algorithms, data mine, process server information, "hack", design viruses. People who are educated and possess critical thinking skills.

Now I understand what Greenwald was hinting at earlier.

All due respect, but this is a relatively pointless realization. Technocrats have existed for decades, this isn't new. Furthermore, critical thinking is very subjective and is not necessarily broadly applicable across disciplines. The skills required to solve a math problem are not necessarily the skills required to solve a legal problem or a policy issue. This point is overstated at best.

 

[Type Username Here]

All due respect, but this is a relatively pointless realization. Technocrats have existed for decades, this isn't new. Furthermore, critical thinking is very subjective and is not necessarily broadly applicable across disciplines. The skills required to solve a math problem are not necessarily the skills required to solve a legal problem or a policy issue. This point is overstated at best.

Fair point, but it was in referencing the context in which Greenwald spoke of earlier. I should have been more precise in my wording.

Greenwald says this is just the beginning and he has more coming. "Courage is Contagious" he said.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Agreed but let's remember that blacks who tried to drink from certain fountains or use certain facilities were committing unlawful acts once upon a time.

Very true, but the impact of segregation/Jim Crow laws and national security efforts are not easily comparable as black and white.

 

[Type Username Here]

Very true, but the impact of segregation/Jim Crow laws and national security efforts are not easily comparable as black and white.

Agreed, I was merely pointing out that sometimes the laws are not in the interest of the people and civil liberties, and that sometimes breaking those aforementioned laws are in the best interest of the country.

Pentagon Papers is another example.

You have to remember something: leaks happened all the time in politics. Right now, we just had a leak of supposed secret briefings the white house had with members of Congress about FISA. What's the likelihood that leaker is sought and tried with a crime?

What about Rove and Cheney in the Valerie Plame affair?

You see what I'm getting at?

 

[newworldafro]

NSA leaker: are there serious cracks in Ed Snowden’s story? | Jon Rappoport's Blog

NSA leaker: are there serious cracks in Ed Snowden’s story?

By Jon Rappoport

June 10, 2013

First, I’m not doubting the documents Ed Snowden has brought forward. I’m not doubting the illegal reach of the NSA in spying on Americans and the world.

But as to how this recent revelation happened, and whether Ed Snowden’s history holds up…I have questions.

Could Snowden have been given extraordinary access to classified info as part of a larger scheme? Could he be a) an honest man and yet b) a guy who was set up to do what he’s doing now?

If b) is true, then Snowden fits the bill perfectly. He wants to do what he’s doing. He isn’t lying about that. He means what he says.

Okay. Let’s look at his history as reported by The Guardian.

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. The sequence here is fuzzy. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this training program? Does he need to demonstrate some exceptional ability before Special Forces puts him in that program?

Snowden breaks both legs in a training exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming Army service? Just asking.

If he was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs?

Circa 2003 (?), Snowden gets a job as a security guard for an NSA facility at the University of Maryland. He specifically wanted to work for NSA? It was just a generic job opening he found out about?

Also in 2003 (?), Snowden shifts jobs. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma. He’s a young computer genius?

In 2007, Snowden is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. Major job. Obviously, he has access to a very wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? Again, just asking. He’s just a kid. Maybe he has his GED by now. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.

Snowden says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep banking secrets to the Agency.

Snowden is this naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?”

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the presidency, might make good changes.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US intelligence network, or a major chunk of it? He had that much access to classified data?

Anyway, in 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and goes to work for a private defense contractor. Apparently, by this time, he knows all about the phony US war in Iraq, and yet he chooses to work for a sector that relentlessly promotes such wars. Go figure.

This defense contractor (unnamed) assigns him to work at an NSA facility in Japan. Surely, Snowden understands what the NSA is. He knows it’s a key part of the whole military-intelligence network, the network he opposes.

But he takes the job anyway. Perhaps he’s doing it so he can obtain further access to classified data, in advance of blowing a big whistle. Perhaps.

Snowden goes on to work for two private defense contractors, Dell and Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is again assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but he claims to have so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. Hmm.

These are red flags. They raise questions. Serious ones.

If The Guardian, which has such close access to Snowden, wants to explore these questions, they might come up with some interesting answers.

Again, I’m not doubting that the documents Snowden has brought forward are real. I have to assume they are. I certainly don’t doubt the reach and the power and the criminality of the NSA.

Although I’m sure someone will write me and say I’m defending the NSA. I’M NOT.

But if Snowden was maneuvered, in his career, without his knowing it, to arrive at just this point, then we have a whole new story. We have a story about unknown forces who wanted this exposure to occur.

Who would these forces be? I could make lots of guesses. But they would just be guesses.

Perhaps all the anomalies in the career of Ed Snowden can be explained with sensible answers. I realize that. But until they are, I put the questions forward. And leave them there.

 

[newworldafro]

US Air Force warns Airmen not to read news on NSA spying - BizPac Review

US Air Force warns Airmen not to read news on NSA spying

June 10, 2013 by Tom Tillison

Is the U.S. Air Force prohibiting airmen from accessing stories about the NSA phone and Internet surveillance controversy via its Internet server systems?

An unclassified NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) — see below — was allegedly sent out that warns members: “Users are not to use AF NIPRNET systems to access the Verizon phone records collection and other related news stories because the action could constitute a Classified Message Incident.”

According to Shane Vander Hart, who first reported on the story, one member received an accompanying email that stated:


I wanted to make sure that all of you read this because just doing a simple search could jeopardize your future. In summary, anything to do with the recent news about the NSA and Verizon phone records are considered classified and searching news or records about these on our NIPRNET computers is unauthorized. Thanks!

As Vander Hart reports, many airman that are deployed only have access to the news through Air Force computers and some members are “upset and outraged by this – understandably.”

“The fact that our government is attempting to censor our service members from the truth of what is happening here at home is truly frightening and disheartening,” Cindy McGee, the mother of an airman stationed in the UAE, told World Net Daily.

Ironically, as WND notes: “The latest news detailing how the government keeps track of this massive amount of data and its origins was posted by the Guardian, for everyone in the world to read, except members of the Air Force.”

To read more on this story, see Caffeinated Thoughts.