He is a sad, sick man.

No punishment is severe enough.

again

...that brought the NSA back into constitutional compliance in 2008.

Because Manny isn't seeing the NSA destroyed, it clearly means that Obama is a liar. Or something.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Here you go, sir.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148767817/Chart-On-Surveillance-Oversight-Prepared-By-Nancy-Pelosi-For-Democratic-house-Members

Please note: all these fixes were done before Snowden came to light.

TL/DR: Before the Democratic Congress of 2008, Bush claimed that Presidents had the right to spy on anyone for any reason in the name of "national security" without any court (FISA or otherwise) oversight.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

.... Committee with oversight responsibilities for the CIA.

Your little chart has not been effective in reining in the unconstitutional activity. Good try though.

However let's be clear. That was the CIA. Not the NSA.

The fixes in the law have to do with the NSA, and there is little evidence that the NSA has made any institutional attempt to evade the restrictions placed on them.

Furthermore, I don't think the CIA will get away with it. Unlike the NSA complaints, which are almost completely fluff, there will be serious consequences to certain operative's careers for the stunt they just pulled.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

... the CIA would never help the NSA or vice versa. Unless ordered to of course.

...or organizational infighting.

But let's be very clear here. Your random accusations based on the "truthiness" of what you want to believe is of no import. Hatred based of uninformed and incurious alienation is neither interesting nor fact.

There is no evidence that the NSA made any systemic attempt to evade their Constitutional responsibilities or the laws of the land, at least not according to the Supreme Court's guidance so far.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

I really doubt anyone but us two are reading this far. And frankly, neither of us will change each other's mind.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Because the Executive branch is cool even with lying to, and spying on, Congress.

That Manny! Doesn't he realize it's for our own good?

...where he makes up his own B.S. about what others think, and then believes it.

But what do I know? I'm the only Democrat to the right of Che Guevara, apparently. And any Democrat who gives President Obama the benefit of the doubt is obviously a DINO. I've been told this repeatedly.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Seriously: how do your views differ from EW's?

Well, let's give it a shot anyway...

- EW is pro gun-control. In many places in Oregon, "gun control" means using both hands. They're literally work tools. (Although I will say that I'd like to see the kids go to mandatory gun-safety classes; but then many gun rights advocates aren't the nutcase extremists you see in the GOP - many who clearly don't actually know how to handle firearms, and seem to only want to have them so as to posture in racist-Rambo fantasies.)

- Surprisingly, I actually see eye-to-eye on EW in terms of environmental policy. It's just that she's a lot more conservative than she lets on. The League of Conservation Voters gives her a rating of 22%. I'm not against the environment, but I am in general pretty pro-property rights. What do you tell a lady you meet at the cafe whose entire retirement beyond a minimal Social Security is the stand of trees growing on her land? (Value about $45K.) You say: "No, don't cry. Just because Democrats have won, it doesn't mean they're going to take away your ability to harvest them."

- I'm "pro" NSA. They got us the lead that led to Osama bin Laden. And the fact that they, like the IRS, know a lot about people's personal lives, doesn't bother me. And again, just like the IRS, they're bound not to tell anyone who doesn't have a legal right to know. I see a lot more governmental overreach in the "No Fly List" than I do anything that the NSA has done. Mind you, *both* of my Senators (Wyden & Merkley) are completely anti-NSA, but I'm grown up enough to know you can't win 'em all; I don't hold my breath and turning blue. So I do support them. Substantially. Senator Merkley knows me by name, and the both (their staffs) send me X-Mas cards.

- I'm generally in favor of measured drone warfare against terrorists, when apprehension and trial is too dangerous. Actually, looking carefully at her positions, this also may not be an issue where there is much daylight between Senator Warren and myself. I think if she *was* elected President, the good Senator might be soon attacked on the D.U. for not being a purist. (Plus, she's a Democratic elected, so she would be attacked no matter what she did.)

- As you might have noticed, I'm not at all hostile to the idea of more direct government intervention to help people economically. Rural economies need the help desperately. And many of Senator Warren's ideas seem perfectly fine things to try. Perhaps in the past I might have wondered about her effectiveness in pushing for, say, the Post Office to offer banking services, rather than relaxing restrictions on Credit Unions, since the latter seems more politically doable. But at this point, nothing is doable. The GOP is in terror of the economy getting better. So why not just throw ideas out there?

I am on the conservative end of the Democratic spectrum. However this does not make me a Republican Tea-Partier by any stretch of the imagination. But I also know such people well enough to know that they're not evil either. Or at least not most of them. Mostly, they're just living in their own alternate reality where the Social Security checks they pick up are "government repayments of only half the taxes they've been forced to pay" (despite the numbers saying the opposite), and are too angry to realize that they're the beneficiaries of such programs. (The lady in the Koch commercial is *absolutely* typical - understand she's not lying; she really believes what she's saying.) They're also very religious and give extremely generously at church, despite living on the edge of the poverty line.

I don't see Senator Warren as a hater, which probably explains my warm reaction to her.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

with no judicial review?

However, since some people do, I think terrorists deserve no better treatment on the battlefield than Confederate soldiers got. At least Confederate soldiers weren't deliberately targeting innocent women and children.

And, unlike the Civil War, there are literally dozens of restrictions that have whittled the situation down to where it is insanely difficult to get on the list. You basically have to be an operational leader of Al-Qa'ida or its associated forces actively planning attacks against the U.S., in a foreign country, personally posing an imminent violent threat, positioned where capture is infeasible, be monitored to see whether capture might become feasible, and where the military attack against you would be in accordance with the laws of war.

Read the memo yourself.

So no, I'm not terribly concerned about the life and well being of any member of Al-Qa'ida (a sworn enemy of the US), whether they have a US passport or not. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the United States may constitutionally use force against United States citizens who are members of enemy forces.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Either the evidence is there, or its not.

Do you see any potential for abuse?

* Judges don't have jurisdiction over foreign territories

* Judges only deal with criminal complaints; enemy combatants -especially officially recognized enemy soldiers- are not legally considered criminals

* Outside of their own courtroom, Judges can only issue warrants for arrest, not deal with active situations

This is well recognized legal territory. Even on U.S. soil, police do not need prior written permission from a judge to take down an active shooter who is running through a preschool.

Of course you can use sophistry to try to "prove" a point about slippery slopes. "If a cop can kill a madman pointing a gun at the head of a toddler without a judge's permission, what's to keep him from killing just anyone walking down the street?" But I think most people see the difference between the two situations.

Same thing goes for Al-Qa'ida. Seriously, I don't think many Americans of any stripe are too concerned about the unfairness of doing them in without a jury of their Yemeni peers. Our national experience with them is well enough established to say that if they are not stopped by any reasonable means, U.S. citizens will die.

This is especially true when you find out that exactly two U.S. citizens have been the subject of military attack this way, and it is 100% clear from their actions that they were enemy combatants.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

When we ask other countries to deport citizens to the US, is a US judge part of the process?

If a person is suspected of murder, can the police (or anyone else) just go kill them?

It explains the reasoning pretty clearly. But here's the TL/DR version: just like we didn't actually need to catch a NAZIs attacking the US soldiers before we shot them, we don't have to catch an Al-Qa'ida operative directly planting a bomb. Open warfare, as existed between the U.S. and NAZI Germany, and between the U.S. and Al-Qa'ida, makes the entire situation "active".

When we ask other countries to extradite (a.k.a. ordinary rendition) U.S. citizens to the US for crimes, typically US judges are not part of the process. Foreign judges are.

As far as your other question, I'm not sure why you think being deliberately obtuse is getting you anywhere. Police are expected to use the minimal amount of force necessary to accomplish an arrest. But courts have never considered it necessary for police to endanger themselves, and they are authorized to use deadly force if they ever feel threatened. Organized attacks on U.S. soil are rarely necessary, except for situations like David Koresh's cult in Waco, Texas. When shooting situations occur, they're typically more spontaneous.

So here are a couple of questions for you:

- Will you vote for the Democratic Nominee for President in 2016? Yes or No?

- Do you see Janet Reno and the ATF as being violators of the constitution for attacking the Waco compound, days after their officers were shot trying to make an arrest?

- Do you think we should risk more US military casualties when we go after Al-Qa'ida by fighting "fair"?

- Conversely, do you think that Al-Qa'ida should be allowed to murder Americans with impunity, so long as they retreat to safe-havens after their commit their terrorist acts?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Proving their only attraction to him is they think he has "embarrassed" the President. If they couldn't try to make out that case, they'd have little interest in Eddie.

Makes things suck around here. Accusing fellow board members of motives that are untrue. I am a fan and I also like our President. It is a personal attack instead of a discussion of the subject at hand.

I find it funny how some people are so quick to point out minor discrepancies in Snowden's statements, but they easily forget that almost every major promise Obama made during the 2008 campaign has been broken.

Weighing them out like that is meaningless.

For Instance:

Failing to keep his promise to Re-negotiate NAFTA and
"make EFCA the Law of the Land"
weighs a whole lot MORE
than keeping his promise to get a dog.

See?

"almost every major promise Obama made during the 2008 campaign has been broken."

The worst aspect of breaking these promises
are that they were MAJOR, specific promises he made to The Working Class in 2008.

compromises on another hundred, but it's only the ones that were BROKEN that were the major promises.

Also, see post #56

Would you not call these major promises?

Most rational people would consider a compromise better than nothing. And I'm not interested in post #56, thanks

We still have a for-profit system that still leaves many working class people without healthcare.

You can call that a compromise. I call it a major broken promise.

that the unprecedented Republican obstruction that he faces on every single issue (and which some people here act as though isn't happening) would never allow it.

And FYI, Politifact addresses that too http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

They voted over forty times to repeal a watered down law that they originally supported. If Obama had shown the same kind of support for single-payer that he now shows for the ACA we could've at least had a public option right now.

Also, I read the politifact article. It only solidified my dislike for their MSM-esque analyses.

If the people elected to represent the American public refuse to do so, then what can one man who represents one of THREE equal branches of government do? Pounding the pavement, "showing leadership" aka "using the bully pulpit" only go so far.

They can only use the power of their office to support or defeat legislation.

Eddie broke a law, however.

I haven't seen much support.

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

people really need to grow up about the Presidency.

But he should have at least pushed for it in the same way he pushed for the ACA.

And if he did it, it would be labeled "hot air." The "bully pulpit" is not magical. It is not true that we would have single payer today had the President "pushed" i.e. "talked" about it longer and more often.

But we might at least have a public option if the President had pushed more strongly for single-payer.

I think it's safe to say that Obama knows better than most what's possible and what's not. Him being on the field of battle and all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

...and waiting
...and waiting

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

For your benefit, I'll try to avoid undue subtlety. I promise.

My original hope was to avoid a laundry list. Oh well!

All false statements involving Barack Obama

"And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

Saying he failed but they are entertainers and I do not expect the truth from them.

Ramble on and on and never say anything.

...in the aggregate, is not the same thing as a specific group of state workers for a specific type of state job, in a state where Presidential intervention in local affairs would likely push things in the wrong political direction.

But hell, let's give you the Wisconson teachers one. It's close enough, I won't quibble. Most of the people who scream on the D.U. wouldn't know a referenced fact if it beat them over the head with a baseball bat. So be my guest and feel all smug about how he didn't intervene when the recall failed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against the strikers, and the protests dwindled to 1000 people.

However, your link is laughable. Most of those statements Politifact calls "false" were clearly true attacks against Republicans. Also, I think what you were looking for is this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

As those are "broken promises", not "false statements". Although again, if you look at most of those "broken promises" they were made for spending on Democratic-favored causes that the GOP refuses to even consider. Had we still a Speaker Pelosi, those likely would mostly be true.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. You know what's not considered a broken promise on Politifact? Put on your walking shoes and try to find it.

where he carried the vote.

picket lines hopefully you will be able to forgive him of this failure since there would have been a very large cost for him to have walked the picket lines. Was not feasible.

Here are a few of the BIG ones off the top of my head:

*Failed to even TRY to "Re-negotiate NAFTA"

*Failed to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on time

*Failed to even TRY to "Make EFCA the Law of the Land"

*Failed to NOT sign a Health Care Bill that "does not contain a Public Option"

*Failed to even TRY to Raise the Cap on FICA Deductions

*Failed to "Walk the Line" with LABOR wherever Unions are under attack

*Failed to even TRY to mandate GMO and Country of Origin warning labels on our food ,
"...because Americans have a righ to know what they are eating."

These are just a few,
but these are very important promises because they are SO BIG to America's Working Class
AND
the above promises were the ones he used to separate his campaign from Hillary' campaign,
and the primary reasons why he got my vote,
and it was all BS.

It is really disappointing that he threw these promises to the Working Class into the trash on day one.

I have the video of him making the specific promises above during Campaign 2008.
If you doubt ANY of the above,
just point out which one,
and I will supply the Video.

with the President. Just hilarious. Eddie is a minor, attention seeking criminal.

10 PRINT "Obama good"
20 GOTO 10
30 REM If you disagree, you've got ODS

nt.

own Mind! albeit a Lyin', hypocritical god.


BuzzFeed Benny ✔ @bennyjohnson
Follow
Snowden condemning unwanted and illegal government interference in peoples lives from Russia
6:42 AM - 10 Mar 2014 104 Retweets 41 favorites •Reply
•Retweet
•Favorite

TOD

Why can't more people see this!!!!! Snowden's poor fashion sense just proves how dangerous this world is. Thank God for men like Starship Cmdr. Alexander who keep us safe.

Take that back about his fashion sense or I'll sic my NSA buddies on your ass!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

He turned his back on the Constitution!!!

"The interpretation of the constitution has been changed in secret from no unreasonable search and seizure to hey, any seizure is fine, just don’t search it. That is something that the public ought to know about." ~ Edward Snowden

http://site.d66.nl/intveld/document/testimony_snowden/f=/vjhvekoen1ww.pdf

Sid

.... and he is we!

perhaps the narrative seems more important than the facts

Answer that and you will learn a LOT about the invisible pillars that support the American Empire.

no matter what. It's kind of a faith for them that America is great. Period. End of story. STFU. When Snowden showed that the government was, essentially, tossing out what many perceive to be a core aspect of the constitution, thus showing America to be more of a police state, people really don't like that because, in effect, it challenges their faith.

Similarly, there are people here who just flat out believe in Obama, more as a matter of faith than because of his actions, it seems. Looking at the symbol they often use, which is the Obama hope symbol from the campaign with a dove, or possibly a halo, really indicates that this is crossing into faith and religious territory. Thus, when Obama says that the program is useful, and people are angry about it, the faith of the people here who "believe in Obama" is being challenged.

Belief and faith are things that can easily be used to get people to work against their own best interests.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

the Vietnam war was raging. To most everyone opposed to the war, he was, and still is, a super hero.

Do we want to believe our only enemy is the party that acts stupid?

Are we giving "our guy" a pass?

Do we need to believe that our country is good?

Are we afraid & just want gov't to protect us?

Whichever it is, much mental time & energy is spent vilifying the messenger while the NSA keeps on finding new ways to spy on us.

Admit it, Snowden bashers, this works great for the NSA.

This straw man victimization is weird from people who think he's a hero. Heroes aren't supposed to be victims. Heroes face the charges.

People CLEARLY hate him as is evinced by the number and intensity of the anti-Snowden posts.

As for heroes should do this or do that... nonsense. He is a hero because he paid a price for doing the right thing. That is sufficient. He need not be further victimized by injustice.

That's just silly. People have to "hate" him not to agree he is saint and hero? Not to believe his exaggerations?

Do you "hate" everyone you disagree with, as to opinions or actions?

Merely that some people hate him is enough for me to have asked the question that I did.

and who doesn't adopt the idea he's a hero, who questions what he did, thinks he should face the charges - is simply accused of "hating" him. Some people became attached to him immediately and failed to back down when he went to China instead of facing charges, went to Russia, and said a hundred provably exaggerated things.

some where in the Twilight Zone.

It's for Rand Paul's version of the Constitution - not anything you'd recognize.

Not shredding it like YOUR guys want to do.

Or using like toilet paper like Bush.

Then again, that's one time he beat your guys to the punch!

Thankfully your version has nothing in common with reality.

After all, in the finest Al Gore sense, Dick Cheney "invented" the current domestic surveillance program.

I love your talk of reality -- partly because you're so far from it you're not in the same ZIP code.

Go on -- cheer this bullshit on -- let's surveil everyone and start running loyalty algorithms, all you are doing is carrying water for Dick Cheney's neocon wet dream of making sure civilians know their proper place in the MIC.

So I'll take your accusations of being associated with tea party idiocy because while untrue frankly it'd be a nicer place than your full throated approval of neocon basic fucking evil.

And the Republicans who created PNAC are now the symbols of Light, Truth, Liberty & Freedom!

The fact that you've chosen to catapult the propaganda to promote such fecal-encrusted delusional stupidity shows just how far down the RW Tea Bagger/conspiracy-laden moonbat Libertarian rabbit hole you've gone.

Let me use short paragraphs so you don't get lost:

Start with "PNAC is Bad. " You will not find a SINGLE post on DU from the Bush Era saying PNAC was good.

PNAC goal was to control cyberspace -- especially to suppress civil "disorder."

Dick Cheney "takes the initiative" to make sure it happens.

NSA builds and operates "collect it all infrastructure" with the full admission that they are "pushing the boundaries" of the law.

President Obama is elected does nothing about it. Who knows? Maybe he can't. The MIC is powerful and entrenched.

Idiot water carriers reflexively defend President Obama so he doesn't look bad -- happily also defending the love child of Dick Cheney.

Some have cognitive dissonance so badly that they think that protesting the continuation of Dick's PNAC love child is somehow an endorsement of said love child. Logic 101 fail. But hey, the right team colors are flying so "Yaaaaaaay team!"

Wear it proudly dude, you have earned it!

That you've as yet only managed to turn up an unfortunate pile of reeking Palinesque bafflegab shouldn't dissuade you.

Everyone gets a Gold Star for effort - even if the content is lacking.

As you do.

Certainly you had no factual refutation other than some namecalling filler.

Game, set and match.

And he notably did not include Cheney in that typically violent RW wet dream.


Who are you rooting for again?