Besides the fact that our allies spy on us, as well, I'm not sure what all the commotion is about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

President they have been doing so?

That's a serious lack of internal controls. This is diplomatically toxic stuff when you're talking about allies with whom you're supposed to be exchanging detailed intelligence, and when they tapped that number because she gave it to Cheney or someone like that as a courtesty--violation of trust. It's nuts that someone like Edward Snowden knew about this before Obama did. Nuts!

It's also not like taping Merkel's phone was going to be useful in preventing terrorist attacks on the US.

He did not read the thousands of documents he stole and it's only because other news organizations are analyzing them that this has come out.

If he did know about it, why didn't he say anything? He and Greenwald led off with a Powerpoint slide.

Sure, it's damaging to have this info out in the public sphere so why is it if not to damage our standing? We spy on other countries, they spy on us. Now if everyone wants to come to an agreement about no more spying, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But what's the point of revealing details if not to tarnish America in some manner?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

foreign heads of state, that's a big enough of a deal that the President needs to know it's going on.

Let's set aside Angela Merkel for the moment.

Do you think it would be acceptable for the NSA to tap the phone of Putin or Assad without telling Obama?

As you pointed out in another post, we don't know the full parameters of what occurred, is occurring or was planned to occur.

It's just as conceivable that 'monitoring' means sitting up and paying attention if a head of state calls a number we have flagged for review.

And I would not support 'tapping' of any head of state if that meant listening in to calls. There needs to be a base minimum of trust between nations and I would draw the line at that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

If he was (as was the case this summer, I imagine) then there's been a breakdown in oversight.

The solution, then, is to have tighter controls and greater review. I very much doubt monitoring heads of state occurred at the behest of one individual, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

(indeed I would bet some change that he was the one who provided the rolodex with those phone #s) and that we have embedded Cheneyites in there.

In that case, the best thing Snowden could have done -other than actually reading documents- would have been to send this information straight to Obama and watched to see what happened as a consequence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Here's a very scary thought to sum things up:

When Obama was talking to Merkel privately on the phone, the NSA was monitoring his call.

What moral basis do you have for locking up Manning if spying is a 'tisk tisk, why the commotion' sort of thing? If we catch a spy from another country, we put them in prison, which is odd considering everyone does it, everyone knows it and it should be shrugged off when noted.
The laws and punishments around espionage do not indicate that any government takes it causally.

You're not supposed to get caught doing it. It doesn't make consistent sense, I agree, but that's the way it's been for a long time.

Should we welcome spying on our country? Reward spies with a gentle push out of the country and a hearty 'Fare thee well?' Getting caught carries consequences, which acts as a deterrant.

I'm not supporting any of this, that's just the way it is now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

that's a bigger no-no.

Seriously, can you imagine Obama's reaction if the internal review didn't turn this up, and he learned about this via Der Spiegel?

Why am I learning about our spying on one of our closest allies from a f@cking newspaper?!?!?"

Maybe Alexander's retirement is at Obama's insistence and not as much political theatre as we might assume. Maybe Alexander pissed his boss off.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

from a coincidence.

Most apt analogy would probably be MacArthur--an officer whose influence had outgrown his rank or the President's ability to keep him in check.

FUCK SNOWGLEN they could've tried the regular way first instead of screwin folk like this and the majority of people who support them wont in any way condone people of color using Snowglens justification of skirting the system.

We have two governments -- the shadow one run by sleazebags and the other one that those out of the loop are allowed to know about.

The Safari Club did a large number of things behind Jimmy Carter's back.

So I, as intelligence person A tell the president "The Chancellor of Germany is publicly saying X but privately wants Y" the next question from the President should be "How do we know this and how confident are you?"

The Intelligence official A should then say "We have her phones tapped and we read her email. We know."

Either the President did not ask these important questions (which is inconceivable) or he was lied to by the intelligence service. Either answer is deeply troubling.

This is my person (and kinda tinfoily) belief: There are lots of things done by the intelligence community that is completely unsupervised by civilians. Partially, this creates plausible deniability. It is also septic for a republic. Think about it: we have a bunch of people running around creating secret dossiers on people like Hoover. They get to choose their oversight by leaking against someone they don't like or worse prosecuting people who they do not like.

We are making that assumption but it may not be valid. Listening in to actual phone calls of heads of state would be an egregious breach of trust but I'm not convinced that's what actually occurred.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Iran, Norks, et al.

I think we agree that would not be controversial.

But I think that making a difference between monitoring and tapping is a distinction without a difference, And if the President did not know -- that is very dangerous territory in which civilian oversight is necessary.

There's not a shred of evidence that our President would expect to be informed of such an invasive spying program, and I am confident that he has his hands full with the daily kill lists instead. Also spot on analysis with the undeniable fact that other world leaders are listening in on our President's phone conversations as I write this.

NSA defenders always switch the subject from "spying on European Presidents or PM's to "spying, period," as if all spying were equal.

And no evidence is presented as to who spies on how many Americans. Randome only guesses that it has to be happening.

who were they reporting to if not the current president??? Anyone???

This paired with Darth Cheney's protests:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11782031

It makes one wonder...

so the real key is maintaining institutional controls over this stuff.

Something is broken at the NSA.

rather than "damage from the US treating the rest of the world like its bitch".

That tells us all we need to know about where Obama stands.

Everything would have been just fine if these other countries didn't find out how America operates in the Bush/Cheney/Obama era.

It isn't like we kidnapped Merkel and waterboarded her to make her reveal the content of her phone conversations. What's the problem?

review actually were.

The authoritarians are firmly in charge. And Either Obama is one, or else he is happy to go along, for whatever 9-dimensional reason he might have.

They're not going to hold a ticker tape parade for Snowden or validate anything he's done, even though they may find themselves reforming things because of what they learned from him.

as opposed to data filtering/mining efforts) if they can do this kind of thing without telling the President.

Terrorists, money laundering, human trafficking, drug cartels, child pornography rings...all these are under their umbrella. Some spying on foreign countries is essential to stop international crime.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

And there's evidence of spying on foreign commercial and industrial enterprises. Plus, I don't believe their authority even extends to criminal spying like drugs and porn. The program has expanded far more than it's usefulness.

Of course the website could be wrong but the general division of labor is that the NSA monitors foreign communications and the FBI deals with domestic communications.

I don't fully understand what the NSA does but I don't think 'stopping' any of these organizations is their goal. They pass along information to the appropriate agencies, foreign or domestic.

There are no NSA agents making arrests because that's not their job.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

The problems is that the NSA has become too powerful and not subject to enough control.

They can't exactly sent a team of FBI agents to Merkel's house to harass her. But that is EXACTLY what they can do to you, or worse.

get away with keeping the President in the dark.

is to keep ramping up their heavy-handed abuse of authority.

They won't go away on their own. Opposition will mounts. Their only option is to become increasing aggressive in crushing opposition.

None of this has anything to do with protecting Americans.

Totalitarian states didn't get that way overnight. It is always a series of steps. We may be relatively early on that path, but make no mistake. We are on that path now.

They sandbag Presidents, it's what they do.

They also shape world events while sandbagging them.

while the American people ignore it

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change&quot without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Just since the CIA was created

2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA Assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War

3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

Both have been involved with torture and murder. Alexander's history should make one aware.

These agencies run beyond administrations with their own agenda, plans and policies.

monitoring the cell phone of a world leader for 10 years, and one of our strongest allies - and he does not know

I don't buy it

complex". The NSA is used directly for spying to facilitate military needs related to strategy. Eisenhower was talking about corruption in the military and this is not only a corruption in use of the military but also a corruption of rights.

... in the White House. In most likelihood, he is a higher priority for the NSA than foreign leaders. Bill Clinton was similarly naive.

because it was better for finding equipment manuals than the units' organic libraries.

That scares the hell out of me.

when the most powerful man in the world is not privy to such information.

When does the POTUS fire a few people for this very large embarrassment?

his dishonesty alone.

as firings. They come months later and they're called resignations or retirement.