Once Again I am Right about Obama

[jarnon]

House Speaker John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor” who put Americans at risk by releasing classified information to the media.

“He’s a traitor”, the highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives said in an extensive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it’s a giant violation of the law”.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... a-traitor/

I think Speaker Boehner was expressing his revulsion, rather than giving a legal opinion. I expect that Snowden will be charged with a long list of crimes, but not treason. And neither the First Amendnent nor the Whistleblower Act will get him off the hook.

[Bob Juch]

House Speaker John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor” who put Americans at risk by releasing classified information to the media.

“He’s a traitor”, the highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives said in an extensive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it’s a giant violation of the law”.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... a-traitor/

I think Speaker Boehner was expressing his revulsion, rather than giving a legal opinion. I expect that Snowden will be charged with a long list of crimes, but not treason. And neither the First Amendnent nor the Whistleblower Act will get him off the hook.

That's if they can extradite him from Russia: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 5676.story
Caution, video with audio starts playing immediately (I hate that!).

[silverscreenselect]

Is Snowden a modern-day Ellsberg?

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/10/edward ... ifference/

There's no question that surveillance techniques like this can be effective. That's why police and the NSA use them; they wouldn't waste that amount of time and money if they never worked.

The current wave of Islamic terrorists are criminals, no different from mob bosses and drug lords, both of whom also have quite sophisticated operations and access to lots of firepower. Knowing their motives may help us find them more easily; but it shouldn't transform them into what they are not.. which is an army seeking to take over the U.S. Their aim is to kill people and destroy property, the same as many other, far more mundane criminals.

And we are gathering this level of information against people about whom we have no probable cause of involvement in anything other than receiving phone calls from "identified" potential terrorists. We know who they talk to, where they are, what web sites they visit, what emails they receive. And the effort that the NSA is expending doesn't just tag phone calls to and from "identified" potential terrorists, it tags all of them with the assurance we can sort them out later. And if a 29-year old contract worker can get ahold of this information, who else can and use it for their own purposes?

So-called conservatives claim to honor the Constitution. However, while our founding fathers did not have experience with electronic surveillance of this nature, they had real experience with actual threats to national security and the idea of being a traitor. Not psychotic misfits who might blow up a building, but actual armies camped on their borders, that could launch another invasion of this country. Somehow, the real threats to our national security that were poised by England, France, and Spain in that era weren't enough to prevent them from writing the Bill of Rights. They knew what government crackdowns were like, with armed troops coming in the middle of the night, and they were determined to prevent that.

[Bob Juch]

Is Snowden a modern-day Ellsberg?

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/10/edward ... ifference/

There's no question that surveillance techniques like this can be effective. That's why police and the NSA use them; they wouldn't waste that amount of time and money if they never worked.

The current wave of Islamic terrorists are criminals, no different from mob bosses and drug lords, both of whom also have quite sophisticated operations and access to lots of firepower. Knowing their motives may help us find them more easily; but it shouldn't transform them into what they are not.. which is an army seeking to take over the U.S. Their aim is to kill people and destroy property, the same as many other, far more mundane criminals.

And we are gathering this level of information against people about whom we have no probable cause of involvement in anything other than receiving phone calls from "identified" potential terrorists. We know who they talk to, where they are, what web sites they visit, what emails they receive. And the effort that the NSA is expending doesn't just tag phone calls to and from "identified" potential terrorists, it tags all of them with the assurance we can sort them out later. And if a 29-year old contract worker can get ahold of this information, who else can and use it for their own purposes?

So-called conservatives claim to honor the Constitution. However, while our founding fathers did not have experience with electronic surveillance of this nature, they had real experience with actual threats to national security and the idea of being a traitor. Not psychotic misfits who might blow up a building, but actual armies camped on their borders, that could launch another invasion of this country. Somehow, the real threats to our national security that were poised by England, France, and Spain in that era weren't enough to prevent them from writing the Bill of Rights. They knew what government crackdowns were like, with armed troops coming in the middle of the night, and they were determined to prevent that.

What they're doing is warehousing a lot of data. I think the whole idea is to save time if they identify a terrorist and want to roll up his associates before anyone can act. If the Boston bombers had communicated more they might have been stopped. Did you notice how quickly their friends were questioned? The first rule if you're going to commit a crime is to not use electronic communication. Snowden didn't reveal anything that hadn't been assumed to have been in place since the US PATRIOT Act passed.

Back in the 70s my phone was tapped. I could tell and knew who to check with to confirm it. It turned out that the reason why was because one of my friends had turned into a junkie and heroin dealer. The DEA got a warrant and tapped the phone of everyone who had called her. Unfortunately for her she was dealing on a Navy base so got 20 in a Federal prison. It's so easy to get a wiretap warrant that I don't have a problem with eliminating that need for terror suspects so the Feds can act quickly.

[silverscreenselect]

Back in the 70s my phone was tapped. I could tell and knew who to check with to confirm it. It turned out that the reason why was because one of my friends had turned into a junkie and heroin dealer. The DEA got a warrant and tapped the phone of everyone who had called her. Unfortunately for her she was dealing on a Navy base so got 20 in a Federal prison. It's so easy to get a wiretap warrant that I don't have a problem with eliminating that need for terror suspects so the Feds can act quickly.

The DEA presumably could have gotten a warrant on her phone, but not on the phones of everyone who had called her any more than they could get a warrant to search your house merely because you met her. That's what probable cause means.

Why should we stop with terrorists? Child molesters are pretty bad people too. So are bank robbers. So are gang leaders. So are drug dealers. So are con artists like Bernie Madoff. Add all those categories up and you get a heck of a lot more deaths, injuries, and financial losses than what terrorists have done (even counting 9-11).

Terrorists are criminals. There's no difference between blowing up a car to kill people as a political statement and blowing one up because the person inside is a rival gang member or because you just like to see things blow up. There's just as much death and destruction. We catch pyromaniacs and mob hitmen within the bounds of the Constitution. Not as many as we'd like or as fast as we might like, but that's the price we pay. We can catch terrorists the same way. In China, they make it a lot easier to catch terrorists... and anyone else they want.

If you allow the President, any President, unfettered access to that type of information, and counting on his morals or good judgment to protect us from overreach, you are ridiculously naive.

[Bob Juch]

Back in the 70s my phone was tapped. I could tell and knew who to check with to confirm it. It turned out that the reason why was because one of my friends had turned into a junkie and heroin dealer. The DEA got a warrant and tapped the phone of everyone who had called her. Unfortunately for her she was dealing on a Navy base so got 20 in a Federal prison. It's so easy to get a wiretap warrant that I don't have a problem with eliminating that need for terror suspects so the Feds can act quickly.

The DEA presumably could have gotten a warrant on her phone, but not on the phones of everyone who had called her any more than they could get a warrant to search your house merely because you met her. That's what probable cause means.

But that's exactly what happened. All you need is the right judge to sign it.

[silverscreenselect]

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration based on the NSA surveillance. This article has very sketchy details:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

[Estonut]

Back in the 70s my phone was tapped. I could tell and knew who to check with to confirm it. It turned out that the reason why was because one of my friends had turned into a junkie and heroin dealer. The DEA got a warrant and tapped the phone of everyone who had called her. Unfortunately for her she was dealing on a Navy base so got 20 in a Federal prison. It's so easy to get a wiretap warrant that I don't have a problem with eliminating that need for terror suspects so the Feds can act quickly.

The DEA presumably could have gotten a warrant on her phone, but not on the phones of everyone who had called her any more than they could get a warrant to search your house merely because you met her. That's what probable cause means.

But that's exactly what happened. All you need is the right judge to sign it.

They cannot legally tap your phone just because you called their suspect. Further, it is more difficult to get a wiretap warrant than it is to get a search warrant.

[Bob Juch]

The DEA presumably could have gotten a warrant on her phone, but not on the phones of everyone who had called her any more than they could get a warrant to search your house merely because you met her. That's what probable cause means.

But that's exactly what happened. All you need is the right judge to sign it.

They cannot legally tap your phone just because you called their suspect. Further, it is more difficult to get a wiretap warrant than it is to get a search warrant.

Please explain how.

[Bob Juch]

[silverscreenselect]

But that's exactly what happened. All you need is the right judge to sign it.

They cannot legally tap your phone just because you called their suspect. Further, it is more difficult to get a wiretap warrant than it is to get a search warrant.

Please explain how.

Here's an article about requirements for a wiretap.

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-authorization

In an ordinary criminal case, the defendant can challenge the validity of the warrant. However, there seem to be few rules involved in the NSA's investigations.

[Bob Juch]

They cannot legally tap your phone just because you called their suspect. Further, it is more difficult to get a wiretap warrant than it is to get a search warrant.

Please explain how.

Here's an article about requirements for a wiretap.

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-authorization

In an ordinary criminal case, the defendant can challenge the validity of the warrant. However, there seem to be few rules involved in the NSA's investigations.

That's true today because of the 1986 ECPA (which has been weakened by the US PATRIOT Act). This was in 1973 however.

[Estonut]

Please explain how.

Here's an article about requirements for a wiretap.

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-authorization

In an ordinary criminal case, the defendant can challenge the validity of the warrant. However, there seem to be few rules involved in the NSA's investigations.

That's true today because of the 1986 ECPA (which has been weakened by the US PATRIOT Act). This was in 1973 however.

The federal wiretap statute, originally passed in 1968 and sometimes called "Title III" or the Wiretap Act, requires the police to get a wiretap order — often called a "super-warrant" because it is even harder to get than a regular search warrant — before they monitor or record your communications. One reason the Fourth Amendment and the statute give us more protection against government eavesdropping than against physical searches is because eavesdropping violates not only the targets' privacy, but the privacy of every other person that they communicate with.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

So keep your mouth shut and be a compliant citizen and Big Brother won't care enough to crush you

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

[Bob Juch]

NSA chief: Surveillance helped stop "dozens" of threats

The widespread surveillance programs exposed to the public last week have helped the National Security Agency stop dozens of terrorist threats, the NSA chief told Congress Wednesday.

"It's dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent," Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director and head of U.S. Cyber Command, said before the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said the exact number was classified but that he's working to publicly release those figures over the next week.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... f-threats/

[silverscreenselect]

The widespread surveillance programs exposed to the public last week have helped the National Security Agency stop dozens of terrorist threats, the NSA chief told Congress Wednesday.

If they've stopped "dozens" of terrorist threats, why haven't there been "dozens" of arrests? What have the FBI and NSA done? Sent them a stern letter advising them not to blow up a building? Kidnapped them in the middle of the night and sent them to Gitmo?

Usually, when the FBI finds evidence of a crime through a wiretap, they arrest somebody.

And if the FBI were given the unfettered ability to eavesdrop on anyone they suspect of a crime or just anyone who fits a particular profile or anyone who supports the opposing political party, they would stop a whole lot more than dozens of criminal threats. The Constitution does prevent police from operating at maximum effectiveness. The Founding Fathers were very directly involved on the receiving end of what happens when police and military operate at maximum effectiveness and that's why we have a Bill of RIghts.

[Bob Juch]

If they've stopped "dozens" of terrorist threats, why haven't there been "dozens" of arrests? What have the FBI and NSA done? Sent them a stern letter advising them not to blow up a building? Kidnapped them in the middle of the night and sent them to Gitmo?

Usually, when the FBI finds evidence of a crime through a wiretap, they arrest somebody.

Probably because they weren't in this country. Other countries may have arrested or otherwise disposed of them. We might have used a Hellfire missile or two as well.

[Flybrick]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589 ... one-calls/

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

The Washington Post disclosed Saturday that the existence of a top-secret NSA program called NUCLEON, which "intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words" to a database. Top intelligence officials in the Obama administration, the Post said, "have resolutely refused to offer an estimate of the number of Americans whose calls or e-mails have thus made their way into content databases such as ­NUCLEON."

That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed.

McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants.

A New York Times article in 2009 revealed the NSA engaged in significant and systemic "overcollection" of Americans' domestic communications that alarmed intelligence officials. The Justice Department said in a statement at the time that it "took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance" with the law.

The IRS, operating in the non-classified world, misused/misuses American citizens' data. We are supposed to trust that same government in the highly classified world to not abuse its power?

Color me skeptical...

[silverscreenselect]

If they've stopped "dozens" of terrorist threats, why haven't there been "dozens" of arrests? What have the FBI and NSA done? Sent them a stern letter advising them not to blow up a building? Kidnapped them in the middle of the night and sent them to Gitmo?

Usually, when the FBI finds evidence of a crime through a wiretap, they arrest somebody.

Probably because they weren't in this country. Other countries may have arrested or otherwise disposed of them. We might have used a Hellfire missile or two as well.

Of course, distinguishing between someone who has the present capability to take action against the U.S. and the tens of thousands of people in that part of the world who bear us a generalized ill will can be kind of tricky unless you just take the NSA's word for it.

[jarnon]

Update: The Administration has proposed changes to the NSA phone data collection program. Phone companies, not the NSA, would store the data (for less than the current five years). The NSA would need a judge's approval to use the data.

Obama to Call for End to NSA Bulk Data Collection

[Bob78164]

What I find "interesting" is that the companies involved deny that it's happening but the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, admitted it does. Of course the companies are prevented by the Act from disclosing that.

What I find interesting is that with all this fact gathering on Americans' phone calls, emails, and web searches they did not or could not stop the Tsarnaev brothers who had been identifed and we were warned about by the Russians.

Given the IRS scandal, I suspect that under this administration the information is being reviewed and used for political purposes and not for protecting us.

The House has concluded an 18-month investigation, and found no link between the IRS's conduct and political operatives in the White House. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The House has concluded an 18-month investigation, and found no link between the IRS's conduct and political operatives in the White House. --Bob

Setting, Casablanca circa 1942, at the airport. A civilian shoots a German officer in front of a Moroccan policeman. When other German authorities arrive to ask who killed the German, the Moroccan official outright refused to cooperate and misdirected the investigation to other suspects. The Germans found no link between the death of the German officer and the civilian.

The Obama Administration refuses to accept any responsibility or accountability in wake
of the IRS’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants. Attorney General Eric Holder
appointed a substantial contributor to President Obama as a leading Justice Department
investigator. The

the Obama White House, which earlier pledged its unfettered assistance, outright refused to
cooperate with the Committee’s fact-finding

The White House and congressional Democrats obstructed the Committee’s
investigation.

[Bob Juch]

What I find "interesting" is that the companies involved deny that it's happening but the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, admitted it does. Of course the companies are prevented by the Act from disclosing that.

What I find interesting is that with all this fact gathering on Americans' phone calls, emails, and web searches they did not or could not stop the Tsarnaev brothers who had been identifed and we were warned about by the Russians.

Given the IRS scandal, I suspect that under this administration the information is being reviewed and used for political purposes and not for protecting us.

The House has concluded an 18-month investigation, and found no link between the IRS's conduct and political operatives in the White House. --Bob

That report is one of the biggest crocks of shit I've ever seen. It reads like it was written by Karl Rove.