Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 40      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #91 
Here is another one -

President Barack Obama’s chief defense of his administration’s wide-ranging data-gathering programs Friday: Congress authorized them, with “every member” well aware of the details.
Not so, say many members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike.

Typically, members of Congress “don’t receive this kind of briefing,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told POLITICO Friday. They wouldn’t have known about the programs unless they were on an intelligence committee, attended special sessions last held in 2011 or specifically asked to be briefed – something they would only know to do if they were clued in by an colleague who was already aware.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/congress-nsa-prism-intelligence-briefing-92438.html#ixzz2Vh6RZje1

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #92 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Obama just can't help himself when it comes to telling the truth. He seems wholly unable to stop lying.

Here, a Dem Congressman disputes Obama's claim that "everyone in Congress" was fully briefed about the government programs collecting data.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3028761/posts


Another source, posted earlier at #62

So easy to miss.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #93 
I didn't say Congress because I know many are disputing knowing all the details.  I specifically, as did Obama, take what Sen. Chambliss said as being true with regards to the Senate.  Hard to determine the distinction between briefed and "fully" briefed.  I understand many in the House are disputing Obama's claims they were well aware.  Please stick to my comments regarding the Senate.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #94 
Hard to make the distinction when you and Obama play semantics on everything that comes out of his mouth.
__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #95 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - Thanks, I now see the differences in the two Senators stories.  Sen. Merkley says he wasn't "fully" briefed on the extent of surveillance.  In other words, he did know about surveillance but took no action to make himself fully aware of what the surveillance included.  I imagine you could say that about many Senators who probably didn't take the time to fully understand what the NSA was doing.  But they could have learned all they wanted had they taken appropriate steps.  To me, this sounds like Sen. Chambliss is telling the truth that all Senators were briefed as to an NSA surveillance program and some sought out more details while others did not.  I guess we can debate which Senator is telling the truth but doubt we could ever fully know.

Edit:  You know you're really stretching things when you have to tell the readers a "Republican" Senator is now lying in order to convince them President Obama is doing something inappropriate.  You have no bounds.  In any event, if Sen. Chambliss tells the President he has briefed every Senator and Obama repeats this fact in a speech, who's to blame if it turns out to be untrue?


Did Obama specifically say he was quoting Chambliss? Or relied on Chambliss for this information?


__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #96 
And where in the quote above from Merkely does he say he wasn't "fully briefed?"

He said he sought out info based on press reorts (re phones) and knew nothing of PRISM.

And here, I'll reprint this paragraph

"Certainly what the president said today stretched several things. He said that Congress had approved this program. Well, if Congress approves something with very specific standards, and those standards were secretly eviscerated -- the guts were torn out of them so they were meaningless -- then Congress really hasn't approved the program at all. And so I disagree with the president on that."

Get that "secretly eviscerated" part?

Now play word games lol

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #97 
“I don’t know how many people knew about it in Congress, but I suspect a very small number on the Intelligence Committee, so when the president says all members of Congress were briefed … well, I think a very small number of Senators in Congress had full details on these programs,” Merkley said.

Why did he say "full details" as opposed to details?  I think it is clear all had some details on this program and I'm sure the full information was available to those who sought it out.

In any event, Sen. Chambliss, Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Graham, Karl Rove, and many other Republicans are in full support of the President and the NSA on this surveillance program.  They are convinced we have saved lives because of it.  It appears Sen. Chambliss informed the President the Senate had been briefed and we'll wait and see what the leaders in the House told the President.  Were they briefed and how extensively were they briefed?  As I said, feel free to carry on as to whether you think this surveillance is appropriate.  It is interesting how Republicans are coming out in favor and Democrats appear to be running away from any knowledge.  We'll let the readers come to their own conclusions as why. 

It's also important to note these programs began under President Bush and have grown under President Obama.  The distinctions I noted earlier were that Bush listened to phone calls and refused to run the legality of such by the FISA court.  Obama discarded listening into phone conversations, limited it to data collection only, and went to the FISA court for the legal authorization to do so.  Some will say Bush only listened in on such and such calls but they have no idea if this is true as it has been kept secret with no legal oversight.  They could have been listening in to all our phone conversations for all we know.  What's more interesting is nary a word from your local anti-Obama folks when Bush was taking similar actions and a jaw dropping reaction now that it continues under Obama.  It's political.  By the way, what is Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rand saying regarding knowledge of these programs?  As I said, Republicans are spinning in their shoes trying to take President Obama to task for actions they generally support.  Let's get past the politics and debate how we want to keep our citizens safe.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #98 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Re court approved, they had to go to three judges before they found one who allowed them to spy on Rosen.

Some court approval - just keep asking judges until you find one that agrees, or caves in to your pressure.

The admin is in court now trying to block the release of documents that show some Patriot Act searches were disallowed. Again, they simply went to other judges until they got what they wanted.

All "court-approved" means is that they could find a judge that would bend to their will. That's ethical to these thugs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - You are getting all mixed up. You're confusing court approval for DOJ subpoenas with FISA court approval for national security issues. I'd fully explain the distinction but it's too hard to do on my phone while I'm at my granddaughter's All Star game. Maybe later.


My post # 60 is what I was referring to. Here is an excerpt:

- In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying. -

The DoJ subpoena was to spy on the press, namely Rosen.
The FISA court approval was for widespread surveillance of US citizens.

You can pretend I'm mixed up to obfuscate Obama's tactics, but that won't change anything.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #99 
"If the seizure and surveillance of Americans' phone records – across the board and with little to no discrimination – is now considered a legitimate security precaution, there is literally no protection of any kind guaranteed anymore to American citizens. In their actions, more outrageous and numerous by the day, this administration continues to treat the US constitution as a dead letter.

Senator Obama said of President Bush and Fisa in 2008:

"We must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law."

No one in America should be above the law. Including this president."

Rand Paul, in The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/nsa-verizon-surveillance-constitution

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #100 
A statement by Cruz

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344004

Excerpt:

"But on one hand the Obama Administration says this enemy is in retreat, yet on the other, they are implementing what appears to be an unprecedented and intrusive surveillance system on private American citizens in the name of guarding against that enemy. Just today, the president encouraged us to trust him on this – to trust that there are safeguards to ensure our privacy is protected, trust that there is a system of checks and balances to prevent an abuse of power. But in light of this Administration's track record, how can they expect to be trusted?

We have discovered over the past few months an ongoing pattern of wanton disregard not only for Americans' privacy, but for the truth – DOJ's refusal to be forthcoming about drone policy, IRS's targeting groups for their political beliefs and then misleading the American people about it, DOJ's targeting of journalists for doing their jobs, and now what seems an unprecedented intrusion into Americans' personal phone records and potentially into their broader online activities."


__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,470
Reply with quote  #101 
And winner by knockout, FIB

Quote:
We have discovered over the past few months an ongoing pattern of wanton disregard not only for Americans' privacy, but for the truth – DOJ's refusal to be forthcoming about drone policy, IRS's targeting groups for their political beliefs and then misleading the American people about it, DOJ's targeting of journalists for doing their jobs, and now what seems an unprecedented intrusion into Americans' personal phone records and potentially into their broader online activities.


Quote:
Hard to make the distinction when you and Obama play semantics on everything that comes out of his mouth.


ain't that the truth.  Seems like Jay Carney is giving the 411 to the libtards on this site 'for the readers'.

I could follow your train of thought throughout the thread FIB, we all know that all members of the senate could not have been fully briefed on the level of spying on our own citizens.  There has been turnover throughout the senate since it began in 2007 and members of certain committees are busy tied up in their own committees to be able to be invested on 'every' issue of major concern throughout the country.  That's like saying every member of congress has been briefed and signed off on the immigration reform headed up by the gang of 8. Or, every member of congress has been fully briefed on Diane Freakinstein's death march toward gun confiscation.   just incredible to try and make such a claim

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #102 
And let's not forget how everyone had plenty of time to vet Obamacare.
__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #103 
Here is Glen Greenwald, on how claims that Congress has oversight are misleading - in short, the NSA doesn't provide them the information they need to conduct proper oversight. Instead they lie.


http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/greenwald-trashes-false-claims-of-nsa-oversight-documents-show-nsa,51b4992dda27f5d9d0d9fcd9/1

NSA = Now Spying on Americans

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #104 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abuse-patriot-act-must-end?CMP=twt_gu

Jim Sensenbrenner, who authored the Patriot Act, dismantles Obama.

"Last week, the Guardian reported that the Obama administration is collecting records of every call made to, from or within the US, as well as records of many digital communications. President Obama has tried to deflect criticism by claiming "every member of Congress has been briefed on this program." While some members of Congress were briefed – particularly those on the intelligence committees – most, including myself, were not."

"The administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this is an abuse of that law."

"In his press conference on Friday, President Obama described the massive collection of phone and digital records as "two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress". But Congress has never specifically authorized these programs, and the Patriot Act was never intended to allow the daily spying the Obama administration is conducting."

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #105 
Now we have the Republicans, who pushed for these surveillance programs to help keep us safe, going against there fellow Republicans , who are in all actuality, Libertarians.  This is going to get interesting.  In addition, Obama will be challenged by his base as to why he continued these Bush programs.  To his credit, he did make certain the Congress and Courts were made aware of these programs whereas the last Administration simply took such power on their own and kept it mostly secret.

If the Administration wants to convince the American people these surveillance programs are necessary, it's time to show more examples of preventing terror attacks.  In the meantime, citizens will weigh their concern for telephone records being collected versus the risk of a serious attack on this Country.  Republicans are convinced the danger is extremely high and started programs in order to prevent serious attacks.  Obviously, the President has agreed with this high danger and continued this surveillance.  We'll see how this plays out.  In the meantime, is there not one Graham or Chambliss supporter inside here who thinks the NSA program is warranted?  Again, are each and every one of you Libertarians?  Hard to believe.  Have a good day, Dewey out.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #106 
What does "made aware" mean, exactly? Briefed? Fully briefed? Totally top-secret briefed? Buried in some memo briefed?

It seems that The Guardian and WaPo stories made Congress "aware" far more than Obama did.

They certainly made the people aware of what the totalitarian "most transparent administration" is doing - in secret.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #107 
At the very minimum it means your Congressional leaders have been fully briefed and if you care to know the full details, go see them.  Some members prefer to remain clueless in order to eventually tell their constituents...who me?  Uh uh.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #108 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
  In the meantime, is there not one Graham or Chambliss supporter inside here who thinks the NSA program is warranted?  Again, are each and every one of you Libertarians?  Hard to believe. 


Hours later and still nuthin'?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #109 
Some of our UCS members jumped on this story as another anti-Obama supposed scandal.  I'd sure like each and every one of you to listen to Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Rogers and then come back and share your opinion, (this means you too woody).  Tell the readers what you agreed with and what you disagreed with.  So much for using this issue for Obama bashing.  By the way, Republican Rep. Rogers confirms no emails are being read.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,113
Reply with quote  #110 
Dewey -

I don't care who the POTUS is, this is unprecedented and dangerous. Obama greatly expanded a program that Bush started.

If the IRS could target you because of your political beliefs, why could the government not do the same with all of this information? It is very dangerous.

Ben Franklin:
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Jefferson:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."



mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,113
Reply with quote  #111 
And - why should I believe Feinstein, or even Rogers for that matter? Just because they say "trust me"? Yeah right
B10IS1

Registered:
Posts: 623
Reply with quote  #112 
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/08/4279323/public-needs-say-in-massive-data.html

I find this clever, again editorial from very left leaning newspaper
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #113 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
And - why should I believe Feinstein, or even Rogers for that matter? Just because they say "trust me"? Yeah right


mikec - Thanks.  I can generally count on you to share your opinion.  It looks like it's you, Sen. Paul, and a few Democrats who are objecting.  I have to admit, the Feinstein and Rogers explanation convinced me the data was used in a targeted manner with security court approval.  For that reason, I have no real problem with the NSA program as described.  We'll see who else chimes in.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,113
Reply with quote  #114 
Dewey - I saw that interview live, and it sounded rational.

The problem is this: what happens if the gov't decides to use it for something else, like targeting its political rivals? All of the data and its use is classified - how would we know? Will we have to wait until enough people have disappeared in the night?

Even if its use is as they described, what stops some power hungry person from using it for other purposes? That person may be the head of an agency, a rogue employee, the POTUS, the military, or anyone. What stops us from have a secret national intelligence police, that drags people off in the night?

I would submit that nothing stops that. It might be tomorrow, or 20 years from now. Owning the data makes it way too tempting.

That is the point - once you start giving away pieces of freedom in the name of security, you soon have neither. I think Ben Franklin had it right.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #115 
mikec - Between FISA court approval and Congressional oversight, I think the appropriate checks are in place.  We've given cops the OK to come through my front door if they have court approval.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,113
Reply with quote  #116 
FISA is classified - you and I have no idea of what goes on there. Congress has oversight o the IRS, and look what happened there. Congressional oversight means nothing, because they can only review what they are given.

If you think about it, it probably only takes about a half dozen people to make you disappear: a couple of judges, someone at an agency, and a couple of those alleged congressional oversight people.

You could be spirited away, and your family may never find out why, because it's classified.

I don't know how anyone can possibly not be terrified of where this goes.

It is only a matter of time....
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,119
Reply with quote  #117 
For the cops to come through your door they have to have specific cause to get a warrant. They can't just randomly choose to come in and look around. The comparison is poor.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #118 
I have faith that between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches all included in the process, abuse can be avoided.  To do so is to risk severe penalty if such abuse is leaked, (not that leaks ever happen).
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,113
Reply with quote  #119 
Therein Dewey lies the the key fundamental difference in our political philosophy.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #120 
If that's the case, this NSA thing is nothing.  We've been subject to terrible abuse since our founding, according to your philosophy, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: