who are advocates of creeping neo-fascism.

DU is pretty much unrecognizable lately.

Never underestimate what a small but very loud and persistent personality cult can accomplish.

Just a very "vocal" minority of the usual suspects, who at the end-of-the-day provide us with very valuable teachable moments to counter their distractions, and who actually help a great deal to clear the waters that the M$M spend every second of the day trying to muddy, with no chance of us responding to their nonsense in order to set the record, or more importantly their viewers straight... so we should be eternally thankful for these sophists and partisans here.

When Nadler speaks out, they smear him.

When Alan Grayson spoke up, they attacked him.

Ellsberg's "jumped the shark" according to the bully brigade too.

There is no such thing as too low, or too despicable a thing that they would do to service their authoritarian pimps.

and a tail when he muttered some utterance in a context no one remembers, giving RP
some credit on some issue, probably either on legalizing pot, stopping the "endless war
on terror", and/or auditing the FED, etc. Here's just one example, from top of googling
"Glen Greenwald loves Ron Paul"
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

According to the Bully Brigade Greenwald now "cannot be trusted" and is
a "traitor" to his nation.

On Edit: I think the only reason Greenwald spoke this way, is that he SAW THEN, way
back before most of us, how things were going to go with Mr. Hope & Change at the helm.

is okay for the mirt squad, juries and admins.

just don't mention guns or your posts will be voted down and you'll get letters telling you to cool your jets.

REC'D. The attacks on Nadler, a Democrat of solid standing, boggle the mind.

If Nadler misunderstood, a laughable accusation, then the latrine-educated constitutional lawyers here can't pretend to have understood a damn thing. And then, even more laughable, try to school everyone else because it's making the Third Way Administration in place look bad.

All the NSA whistleblowers misunderstood eh?
Gore, Sanders, Wyden, Nadler, Conyers, Lopez, Grayson etc misunderstood eh?
But the same muddleheads who rubber-stamped the lies of the Bush/Cheney administration, the wars! They understood?

Bullshit. But even more hilarious is the pretense that we should ditch them under the bus because the same partisans, who have never found ANYTHING to fault with this administration, have any standing whatsoever to school anyone.

intelligence. NO LAW has ever given the Government permission to spy on our own people.

And they are NOT DENYING they are doing it, they trying to defend it. Iow they broke the law.

To try to defend ANY government spying on its own people is sheer insanity.

In fact, we have laws forbidding any kind of propaganda that might used to fool enemies, from being used against the American people.

All these laws make sense and are in line with the concept of a free country.

then classify them and use them as a basis for ruling us.

Secret courts, secret interpretations, secret rulings, secret files, secret security forces.

Secret detentions are right around the corner.

The senior NSA crypto-mathematician who automated the agency’s worldwide eavesdropping network, director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group had this to say "The intent from the beginning, before 911, was to gather information on all Americans"... "I call it being on a slippery slope toward a totalitarian state"

thank you. Interview is easy to follow even though the guy speaks Dutch (subtitles) in part. Binney is in English.

Bill Binney (former NSA) tells a Dutch interviewer that the US collects the interviewer's Facebook and Twitter activity. He confirms that the US collects data world wide.

Binney and those who have been saying this for a long time are big Snowden supporters.

to understand how the 3 slides Greenwald published are only the tip of the iceberg. Greenwald had to consult with his lawyers and was told that if he shows some of the other slides in that deck, he'll have serious legal troubles. Imagine what's on those.

Memory Lane:

Here are nine companies who participate in the program, starting with Microsoft in 2007. The others are Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple. YouTube is a Google subsidiary and Skype is a Microsoft subsidiary.




From these 9 companies they get your email, chats, videos, photos, stored data, voice-over-IP communications, and whatever other "special requests" they have




People better wake up quick.

They're already here.

http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

... Darth Cheney did it. But since the double standard doesn't go both ways....? Never mind.

as Al Gore said this week 'is crystal clear' in its intent, that 'the 4th Amendment can be interpreted differently by different people'. Unbelievable!

F stands for FOREIGN. How hard can that be?

I don't even pay attention to them. They have a big bus, I have an ignore list to avoid wasting time with that drivel.

We're not a free country anymore. When were we all ever really free? An 18th century French writer who supported the great dream of America, helped finance it and wrote glowingly about until he step foot on our shores had this to say (rough paraphrase)

The first man I met in the great land of liberty was an African slave.

So when exactly did all the freedom start? After the Civil Rights Bill? After the Equal Rights Amendment? Oh wait, we still don't have that one.

The laws on paper make sense but the practice has been quite another thing. And now they just want to even do away with the pretense of the most fundamental laws of a democracy so that we'll never get there.

Over my dead body.

assuming they do know. If so, and people do understand that gathering and storing information on Americans is against the law, then they have some agenda.

and the area under the bus grows ever longer.

I simply do not understand the fighting over this. It is out there, it can't be put away. I don't even think the Syria issue will move people from this. This is personal, oh so very personal. So why are people all freaked out fighting this and throwing everyone who has ever had a question under this very very large bus? Shoot, it has gotten so bad that if I want to find out what anyone I have ever respected is doing I have to go digging around under that bus!

To not question this seems the height of abrogation of your responsibility as a citizen, something I thought we all cherished.

It is hard enough to find answers to these kinds of things (911 commission) when the questioners are appointed by those in question. I hope these guys really investigate, it has been a long time since we really had an out in the open investigation. If they do an open investigation there will be daily hell to pay around this website. There is never harm in questioning and investigating unless there is bad stuff, illegal stuff, unconstitutional stuff being done, then those who stand to be discovered start to fight really hard. It will be interesting to see who those people are.

Sucks if you find out "your guy" is involved. Still, wouldn't everyone rather live in a world where the bad guys were found out and removed from high office and the public was then protected by repairing rather than more concealing?

and the more you read about it, the more you research it, the worse it gets. When Loretta Sanchez said this was only the tip of the iceberg, that should have gotten people's attention.

When the NSA director who designed and ran the system, resigned a 30-year career to blow the whistle, that should have gotten people's attention. It should at least now.

When the NSA director who ran the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group tells you they reach into your computer, exploiting vulnerabilities (that other tech information says Microsoft gave them) and can take anything they want out of your computer, using your own CPU to transmit whatever they want back to the NSA databases, that should get people's attention.

When he states that, at his time, there were 11 intercept centers in the US, for domestic surveillance, and that the ATT center on Folsom in San Francisco was indeed one of them, that should get people's attention. Most of the things I mentioned, in case anyone is curious, are in this thread.

Instead, it's all spin because "our guy" is involved.

I want to live in a world where bad guys are prosecuted and the public is protected. "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things … I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."

nor do I want to live in a world where you have to fight your way to the truth but first have to clear all the obstacles put in front of you by the people who would protect "our guy" and let the rest go until "the other sides guy" is in office.

Perhaps our guy is not really involved? I am of the opinion he is either clueless (inexcusable) or involved (inexcusable) but would be thrilled to find out it was none of the above so I have to wade through all the protector posts to look to find actual information.

I feel I have to say that yes, wading through the protector threads to get to threads I think are informative sounds a bit like I have decided Obama is guilty. On the contrary, what I might think or how I care about this means nothing as the information is not all out, not by a long shot. However, the only place or way to find out is to look at the threads that are not involved in the "our guy at all costs" obfuscations. The truth lies in digging through all the disgusting muck and not stopping because "our guy" might be involved.

Thank you for all your threads. They have been informative and sad but we have to do this now. Somehow, somewhere, someone decided we did not matter any more. We are charged with this task. We live in this time, it is in front of us now.

Things need to change. We matter. And our children matter even more.

babbling on DU are.

It isn't a "laughable" accusation. Remember the Congressman who called the internet a series of tubes? Read the story yesterday about Congress people not showing up for the briefing? Even Greenwald's initial report on Snowden's information was WRONG because he misunderstood what it was saying.

And you can't lump "All the NSA whistleblowers" when you offer absolutely no FACTS about what they were referring to.

In no way am I attacking Nadler or throwing him under the bus.

There is something fucked up about DU that simply trying to stick to facts and really find out what is going on and being referred to is opening oneself up to attacks for being an enabler or apologist.

rotten in NSA, one group reacts by saying the we need to get more facts and look into the possibility of wrong doing. The other group as shown, and some are still showing, that they would rather attack the whistle-blower and those that might be asking for more facts, and close the box on the whole mess.

I will admit that sometimes those that are disturbed with whistle-blower revelations have strong reactions. They may feel very strongly about any hint of Constitutional violations. They may know from experience that unless there is a strong reaction, nothing will get done.

I say bless whistle-blowers and bless those that are not afraid to speak out. Democracy depends on transparancy while an authoritarian state depends on secrecy.

you omitted.

Reactionary screamers who shout down anyone actually looking for facts and labeling anyone who doesn't show appropriate outrage and deference to certain figures and credibility to certain commentators as apologists, enablers etc.

or anyone else.

Stalling for time isn't going to make the problem go away.

On the other hand, by stalling for months or years, some will ultimately claim based upon partial information, "We've known this all along. It is old news."

"when you offer absolutely no FACTS"

When the fact of that statement itself shows a complete bias that cannot be believed.
What you mean to say is there are no FACTS that I WILL believe.

convicted of crimes, then had the conviction overturned, who DID call the Internet a 'series of tubes' to Nadler. Nadler is a brilliant, legal mind. He HAS offered facts, and he's been doing it for more than a decade. Poor STevens wasn't that bright which is probably why he got into trouble.

When it comes to Constitutional issues there is no more informed than he is. If he is concerned, then we all should be. And remember, even though he is not free to discuss what he knows he was briefed and is very concerned. So is Ron Wyden, also gagged but very concerned. Those are facts no hyperbole.

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

wars of aggression and choice is the Good Guy, just like Nader is responsible for the Dem votes that passed the IWR, just like the 2006 election was a Maoist purge of the Dem party, and just like 2010 was the gays' fault...

oh, and "circular firing squad"

Put Mueller's briefing on line.

Nadler questioned Mueller a few days ago

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456141

"Apparently there is some effort to discredit even Jerry Nadler now, in favor of Mueller. From what I have read, the only argument appears to the source from which the story came."

There is no effort to "discredit" Nadler. Some people are misrepresenting what he said, and are being called on it.

Or for something he said to be misconstrued.

And to the reactionary screamers who will take my post as "apologist", I support their call for hearings and hope they happen.

transparency. Looks to me like a little "over reaction" is needed to get people to open their eyes.

seems to be the ONLY thing we have left to use.

nt

... and I think he understands a lot more than many here on DU do about what many of them have had to go through and all of the "escape clauses" that the government has been using to rationalize the further eroding of our 4th amendment to spy on us without accountability, especially with the "state secrets privilege" that has been a barrier for the public to be aware of what is going on when whistleblowers tried to "go through channels" and take cases to court to expose what they perceived of as wrongdoings and violation of many Americans' rights then. This is illustrated in his comments here over three years ago on the state privilege before congress...

time. He was, eg, one of the few who stood up against the destruction of ACORN and who pointed out that what Congress did in that case, cave to the far right and remove their funding, was unconstitutional. Courts agreed with him, but shamefully, it was too late for ACORN, with the help of far too many Dems, the organization was destroyed by the Right.

I will always remember his intelligence and knowledge of the law during that shameful period.

Which is why it is very doubtful to me that he misunderstood anything, and reading the transcript he makes himself very clear. People are contradicting themselves and he wants to know why.

I submit not.

That said, when one observes this level of "scrambling" to "corral the story" one has to rely on the old adage: "Where there is smoke there is probably fire".

Given the observed "scrambling" I am of the mind that the Government is no longer trustworthy and neither is the so called "Transparent" president.

When it comes to the privacy of my grandmother, my parents, and my friends, I have a zero tolerance policy!

FISA is for Foreign Intel. Congress has NEVER allowed this kind of domestic 'data collecting and storing' on American citizens.

The ultimate target must be a foreign sponsored or affiliated espionage or terrorist group.

former NSA people who said this is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

telling me. They are defending what they have been doing claiming it's all okay to collect the data of Americans, NOT Foreigners, because they abided by the FISA law and got a warrant. That is not possible since the FISA Bill does NOT permit Domestic 'data collection' for present or future use, with or without content.

So if they are telling the truth and actually did get a warrant, either they lied to the FISA Court or the Court itself has violated the law under which they operate.

So to settle the matter of how they obtained the warrant they are claiming, let them release the probable cause argument they presented and swore to, to the FISA Court. Because 'no warrant shall be obtained without probable cause' etc etc.

I think maybe you have not been following this issue, you seem to not understand what has been claimed, what the FISA law, which even you must know is what they are using for cover, actually allows. Nor do you seem to understand that it is not being denied that they WERE collecting data on Americans, domestically. We are not talking about Foreign data collection.

the demands of records of American citizens in domestic to domestic communications, and yet that's just what they are doing. It's NOT legal.

/sarcasm off

And I think that standard should also apply to any President who's been found to abuse his power and commit illegal acts. Am I calling for Obama's impeachment? Not yet. But, given all the allegations by several witnesses, and his administrations secercy, lack of transparency, and lack of truthful answers, it's time Congress started doing their job and hold hearings. If that leads to impeachment, so be it. No President, R or D, should be above the law.

who wishes he were your constituent

If it helps with the decision, Rep Alan Grayson is a true fighting Democrat while Clapper is a Boosh Republican.

It's a post about Nadler and Conyers who've been fighting the good fight a good deal longer than Grayson.

character Assassination and a smear campaign. (Check)

When that does not work, scandal. I expect a variation of the OH MY GOD SEX... HIDE THE CHILDREN! PROTECT THE WIMEN!!!

When that does not work, Congressman make sure you studiously avoid small planes.

Cite it.

anything. Nor is 'walking back' anything. He has asked questions in light of the leaks and is disturbed at what has been revealed.

The apologists claim he 'didn't understand' and that he is 'walking back' his position. No, he didn't misunderstand, he got different answers from different people, as he pointed out to Mueller so he wants to know what the facts are.

He's not a stupid man and has not publicly said he believes the law was violated, however it certainly looks that way. FISA is for Foreign Intel. NOT for Domestic spying. They have admitted 'collecting and storing data on domestic phone calls'. That is illegal, unconstitutional and he is right to ask for hearings.

"Apparently there is some effort to discredit even Jerry Nadler now, in favor of Mueller."

Suggesting that he might have misunderstood, or that he's "walking back" (when did that happen?) is not "an effort to discredit" him.

FTR, it would appear that the central issue is that the CNET article grossly misquoted him. I would think that pointing that out does him a service.

Nonetheless, you started with a false premise and should own it.


ETA: I see now that Nadler did clarify his understanding, and that he is assured that the NSA is not listening to phone calls without a warrant. Shame that the author of that piece called it "walking back" when it's obviously not in conflict with his previous statement.

or any other source posted it, that doesn't change what was said.

I stand by what I said. It is despicable for anyone to imply that Jerry Nadler, who has long been known as one of Congress's most informed members on the issue of Constitutional law, misunderstood a moron like Mueller.

It was meant to imply that he is not informed when there is hardly anyone in Congress who is better informed on Constitutional law and who has been outspoken on the law throughout the Bush years while others remained silent.

His word on the constitution is gold compared that of Mueller.

All the apologists had to do, if they didn't trust cnet, was what I did, go get a transcript rather than rushing to claim 'he misunderstood' and then attacking the source as a means of distraction.

And right here in this thread is a blue link to the claim that 'Nadler is walking back' his position. That is a lie.

I started with no false premise. I have seen good Democrats here trashed with praise going to morons like Peter King on DU.

There IS no defense for WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADy ADMITTED. And in my opinion to which I am entitled, I am sick to death of the apologists for destroying all of our rights and I completely blame them on both sides, for the state of this country today.

Do not accuse me of 'starting with a false premise'. I know what I read here and decided to straighten the record out.

Attacking sources is an old trick. If Democrats do not want to give fodder to the Right, then DO WHAT IS RIGHT! Defend and protect the Constitution. That is all their oaths require of them. And that is what Wyden, Nadler, Grayson and a few others ARE doing and I for one am grateful to them.

"It is despicable for anyone to imply that Jerry Nadler, who has long been known as one of Congress's most informed members on the issue of Constitutional law, misunderstood a moron like Mueller. "

What I've seen is the suggestion that there was confusion about the subtext of the conversation. And there was, by both Mueller and Nadler. Who has said that Nadler "misunderstood" Mueller?

"It was meant to imply that..."

Pile it on!

claimed to have misunderstood, Nadler graciously allowed him that. Nadler was as clear as a bell in that discussion. He said very clearly that what Mueller had said contradicted what they had been told. Mueller ended by stating he would try to get the facts. If anyone was confused it was Mueller.

Nadler: Then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn't need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict.

Mueller: I'm not certain it's the same... I answered the same question, but I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it's the same question.

"I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant"

... doesn't mean that you are accepting that they are all DOING "the right thing" to comply with that stated policy. He's just pleased that there's at least a general agreement in public what the policy should be before we get in to the facts of what really is going on and what is being kept secret from us. Sabrina already said that in a post here, but you keep rationalizing that she is "wrong" because you try to couple a public statement on policy with what in fact is being done which hasn't been established for most of us here that have a big problem with what is being hidden from us constantly through crap like the "state secrets privilege".

"... the administration has reiterated that ... the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant ... "

But it sure has got the extremists panties all wadded up in excitement.

the perps who tried to destroy people's rights for a while. But they always surface again so in order to maintain a democracy, every so often when the time is right, the people have to do that again. This may be that time, it's been brewing for over a decade now. And sooner or later a tipping point arrives.

are opening up the need for discussion in this matter and will be fine. Will it change the spying surveillance of the USA and other countries, probably not, cyber wars and snooping is so 21th century. Sownden going to a rival country such as China who does the same type of snooping on their people and he is claiming civil freedoms makes me and many others weary of Mr. Snowden's true intentions. That is the way of feel and ain't backing down from that.

becoming a long line. It really isn't relevant where they are or who they are. I am glad to see some members of our party are able to remain focused on the issue itself, one which they have been concerned about for years, and are calling for hearings so we can all find out who is defending our rights and who is selling them to highest bidder.

I hope Democrats join the calls for the transparency we were promised. It is OUR money they are spending on these multi billion dollar Corporations and it is OUR rights they are selling, who knows to whom.

You say you're upset because the leaker went to China.

I'm way more concerned about how much of this 'work' they outsourcing to China and elsewhere considering their main goal is 'profit' with no obligation, other than a moral one, to protect all this 'data' they collected, most likely illegally if they are FISA to excuse it.

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023027901

and he asked Mueller a series of questions, which Mueller was 'unclear' about, which he himself admitted.

Nadler's point was that they cannot talk about it so we don't have an answer, because it's classified.

Here, read it again:

that it was illegal. What he did not say, as you are attempting to imply, is that he's now happy that the NSA has not DONE anything illegal. Show me THAT quote.

Since Congress wasn't briefed despite the lies told that they were, and many of them are making it clear they were not, like the President until now, Nadler believed since it was illegal they wouldn't be doing it.

So he's happy to hear his belief that it is illegal confirmed by the President.

Now he wants to find if they were doing it anyhow.

Please stop trying to interpret what people can read for themselves.

They have confirmed they are collecting phone data 'domestically'. THAT is illegal.

Ron Wyden who cannot speak publicly about what he knows: IF the American people knew what they are doing with the law, they would be outraged!


And it's possible the President doesn't know either, just like Congress. So Nadler wants hearings. It's possible that they've been lying to the President too. Just like his advisers on Offshore Drilling lied to him which was proven, tragically, 18 days after he announced that they had assured him Oil Rigs were now safe and the ban could be lifted.

Maybe he should get rid of all those Republicans he has appointed and put some more trustworthy Democrats in those positions. Why he would trust these people is beyond me.

"You're free to unconvolute it, if you can!"

...start?

You claimed:

"Since Congress wasn't briefed despite the lies told that they were, and many of them are making it clear they were not, like the President until now, Nadler believed since it was illegal they wouldn't be doing it."

That's completely made up, including the part about "lies" being told to Congress.

Harry Reid: If Lawmakers Didn't Know About NSA Surveillance, It's Their Fault
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022995784

PATHETIC! - Only 47 of 100 senators attended the 2:30 NSA Spy briefing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022446

Still, it's pretty clear from the dismissal of Nadler's statement and the numerous inaccuracies in your claim, that you have no intention of acknowledging facts.

makes clear, see the OP. He contradicts the claims that 'Congress was regularly briefed'. As for the link to those who didn't show up last week, that has nothing to do with 'Congress was regularly briefed'.

And Reid is one of those Nadler is contradicting. Sanchez is another who is contradicting Reid et al.

I believe Nadler, have never known him to lie. And Sanchez has no reason to lie.

This isn't anything new.

Did you know about it?? Seems you just found out like I did. I fully support these Democrats and hope they are joined by more.

so now the question is about what was said and meant in that hearing.

The story has already had several reversals. This is the latest that I'm aware of:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_3448299.html

UPDATE: Nadler walked back his comments in a statement to BuzzFeed on Sunday. “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," he said.

agrees with him that domestic spying is illegal under the FISA Bill. He also has stated, in his discussion with Mueller that Congress has been lied about when it has been alleged they were 'briefed and supported every decision made by the NSA.

He said that is false. Congress cannot DISCUSS those briefings which is why they have been silent, HE cannot discuss them and he wants the public to know that their silence on the briefings has zero to do with agreement. He CANNOT TALK about what he knows. So any public official, the WH or anyone else who claimed Congress 'approves' or even implies that, is lying.

And what he knows has caused him to ask for hearings and to my knowledge he has not cancelled that request.

Ron Wyden also knows what they are up to. And he has said that 'IF the American knew how they are using this law, they would be outraged'.

Bottom line, both Nadler and The President now agree, that collecting and storing data on Americans, is illegal under FISA.

But here's the problem while the President agrees with him, he has also acknowledged they are doing what the leaks revealed. So, as Nadler said, people are contradicting each other.

And that is why we need hearings.

airc, meaning it was meant to expire at some point.

Get rid of all Bush policies, they are the cause of all that is wrong with this country right now.

In an official election the town voted to repeal the Patriot Act.
We also staged a Occupy protest of 120 persons on highway 101, that's 10% of the towns population.
We need to fight back!
Now!

The citizens Jefferson and Franklin were talking about, Cool Town you got there .

you are on top of things. Thank you.

We do need more officials in our congress that have some integrity and, to my way of thinking are full of patriotism.

I just emailed Pres. Obama that he did not need to tap my phone, and told him why. I just called my neighbor to make sure he was OK after the death of his mother. That we will be at the services, and if there is anything I can do to let me know. This after I visited him in person yesterday to reminisce about his Mom. So file my call away and come and get me for being a criminal.

Every time she posts in threads I post in, I always see her as a voice of reason and rationality, and one who puts aside emotions at times when it is difficult doing (like when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of rape, but perhaps was himself a "victim" of a plot to oust him from the IMF, even if completely justified if he was the jerk many claim him to be, to help put in place more austerity measures, etc.).

We need many more posters like her to help us drill down on what the real truths are that the PTB are trying in so many "tricky" ways to keep us from finding.

If there were far more congress people like Jerrold Nadler, Grayson, Wyden, Merkley, Warren, etc. then perhaps we could get rid of the mess we are left with now from Citizen's United and restore a real democracy that works for all of us.

And you are right, none of this makes any sense, collecting data on American's phone calls is shameful and anti-Constitutional and cannot in any way make us safer. They must think we are all stupid!

revelation, if accurate, is the by British GCHQ with the assistance of the NSA was to eavesdrop on attendees of the 2009 G20 conference in their computer communications, not to find any terrorist connections but to gain advantage in negotiations. With this revelation, why would any reasonable person, not conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that this massive data collection and storage can be easily turned to other uses should secret exigent circumstances arise. Exigent circumstances may be other declared threats, aggressive environmentalists, advocates of unpopular political views, critics of the current in power political party etc.
Is the collection of citizens personal phone data a violation of the Constitutional guarantees? Regardless of the purpose. If it is, it is not just an overstep, but the highest breech of trust that can be apart from outright treason.
If anyone who has taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution is found to have violated any rights of the people, they should be prosecuted criminally, regardless of their position.
Yes, this whole matter revealed by Snowden should be investigated as publically as possible with discretion in any release of information that may endanger lives.

I saw the British story and it sure exposes the lie that is all so necessary because of 'terror'. I guess we are all terrorists now, the entire world is filled with terrorists.

What I don't get is why they are not using all this technology to prevent spying on us? I guess protecting the American people is just not a priority for them.

this isn't about protecting us from anything. It's about power and money. It always is.

the TSA and its Rapiscans that made a fortune for people like Chertof which we were told were vital to our security. Now they are gone! I guess they had made as much money as they could, the law suits though might have bankrupted them, or they wanted to spend even more money, so now they have new machines, which they claim, won't give us cancer like the old ones. Lol, you have to laugh or you'd cry.

They fought back furiously when people protested their use on that basis, declaring there was no such danger.

Now they are quietly taking them out of our airports. So, I guess the terror threat is over??

only a matter of time.

and totally debunked multiple times.

Nadler's statement is merely saying that he is grateful to hear that the President AGREES with him that what the NSA is doing is illegal, as he has always believed.

He now has the president's confirmation of his own belief.

The author of that article is stupid. Nadler was doing the OPPOSITE of what is stated in that article, he is taking the President's statement as CONFIRMATION of his own belief, they are acting illegally.

He is a great legal mind and was not about to say more than that, since he is not permitted to do so.

Too bad the 'journalist' isn't as great an interpreter journalistically or familiar obviously, with Nadler's longtime belief, which the President confirmed, that the NSA is acting illegally.

As for the Front Page, I rarely go there and have no idea how anything gets there. Take it up with the Admins.

Public, open oversight is needed. The secrecy is exaggerated -- as it always has been in recent years in our government.