If so, were the posters who defended the bulk data collection wrong? All Greenwald is doing is point about the rank hypocrisy that will likely be on display by people who will defend anything the President proposes.

Everyone is attacking Greenwald instead instead of admitting that they are now flip-flopping on their past support of the NSA.

In fact, I think it's a bad idea. Better than the previous idea which was to have a neutral third party maintain the data but still a bad idea.

The records will still be maintained by telecoms just as they are now but when law enforcement needs to serve a warrant, they will need to serve it to every telecom in the country or devise a speedier system that will no doubt also have its shortcomings.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

instead of addressing the issue of their support of NSA data collection activities.

Telecoms won't be required to keep the records longer than they normally would. How much trouble is it for the NSA to get a specific warrant for a telecom? It's not.

I'm no expert on these matters but I'm betting that if Law Enforcement has a legitimate need to look up the numbers of possible co-conspirators, they don't even have numbers. They wouldn't know the telecom company involved so they would need to serve their warrant at every telecom in the country!

I'm thinking it's a lot of trouble keeping the data dispersed this way, which is what the central storage method was devised to eliminate in the first place.

Will they devise some new, speedier way of searching every telecom's records? Maybe. It seems like a bad idea to me, though. Too many additional points of interception, hacking, etc.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

on the process.

Greenwald is predicting their response based on previous examples of when the President reversed course (torture photos).

Randome just defends the surveillance state with both barrels. Pretty good DUer, though, in other respects. Makes good posts when not posting about the NSA, CIA or other surveillance related activities.

The BOGers, well, I put them on ignore, and my DU experience is much nicer, friendlier and coherent.

They are totally assured in the belief that Obama is the world's one perfect man and could never make a mistake. They even totally vilify anyone (Snowden, for example) that dare to criticize him or his policies or any of his appointments.

Unfortunately, hypocricy, although totally rampant among Repugs, is way too often a Democratic trait as well.

who march goosestep after goosestep to the command of whomever-they-feel-is-in-charge-at-the-moment, now Obama. They are the sheepie who follow their leader off a cliff if necessary to demonstrate their loyalty.

Loyalty to what? To a person. To a strong man. To someone with whom they identify as the leader. And why? Could it be because they are insecure, do not think things through for themselves and feel safest when tramping mindlessly in the to them large footsteps of the "leader"? My answer to that question? Yes.

The Democratic Party is a big tent. We Democrats have lots of disagreements. We flourish on new ideas, ferment and creativity. Traditionally, ours has been a movement in which people think for themselves.

Remember the great ideas that formed policy in the past -- the peace movement, the women's movement, the civil rights movement, the sexual revolution, most recently under Obama, the health care rights movement and never to be forgotten, the New Deal and before that, the labor movement which eventually found a home in the Democratic Party. All these movements began as ideas sponsored by a dissident, at first unpopular even shocking and very small group within the liberal party (not always called Democrat). Each of those movements became popular enough among voters to make it to the mainstream. None of them were thought up by a party leader. Rather they were the brainchildren of intellectuals, workers, women, families of seriously ill people, and African-Americans. Minorities. The excluded. The disappointed. The underpaid. Those deprived of human rights,

But, for some strange reason, perhaps a reaction to the truly absurd vilification of Obama by the right wing, some of the very people who have profited the most from the fertile, changeable, wide span of the big tent of the liberal movement (now called the Democratic Party) seem to think that Obama must be followed even when he is clearly wrong and at odds with our Constitution.

Greenwald is right. There is something very strange going on when Democrats goosestep to the beat of a Democratic president. People are not thinking for themselves. They are either lazy followers out of habit or following out of fear of something. Is Obama such a threat that the goose-steppers need to be so obedient?

Not for me. I keep my thinking independent.

Thank you, Edward Snowden, and all who assisted you. You told us what we need to know and not a day to soon.

I had a strange experience. One day I googled the name of an old boyfriend from college. I dated him a few months. He was tall and swashbuckling, very handsome (at least I thought then) and an extreme radical. Really extreme. I was a minister's daughter who was brought up by pacifists who cared about the poor and followed Jesus' teachings as well as they could. I was on the debate team in high school and loved nothing more than to argue politics. He was the perfect date for me because we utterly disagreed about the role of violence in politics. We argued and argued and finally he found someone who agreed with him. End of story.

But i was curious about what had happened to him. He was such a loudmouth and had such controversial ideas. So I googled him.

I can't tell you whether it was one year or two or when it was, but I went to visit a friend (we were in our 50s and 60s) who had worked for a defense contractor. We had dinner at her house and she introduced my husband and me to a "guest." A friend from her work she said. He asked me, questioned me, about my relationship with this guy I dated when I was in college. It was rather funny because he seemed to think I should be embarrassed to discuss this in front of my husband. It amazed me because my google search on my boyfriend's name turned up absolutely nothing. I am still puzzled by this event, but the thought has crossed my mind that my search signaled something to someone. Perhaps I am completely paranoid. But this old boyfriend was not a historical figure. I don't think his name was ever mentioned in a newspaper. I have no idea what happened to him. How did my friend's "friend" know anything about him?

Does anyone have any plausible explanations for this strange experience? It really happened. I have a living witness in my husband.

The NSA surveillance of your every Google search, your every e-mail, your every phone call, your every Mastercard transaction, your personal records could reap you a visit from a stranger one day. Beware.

I'm not saying that is what happened to me. I'm just saying . . . .

We shall see what Obama's proposed bill looks like. I'm not optimistic.

so I don't monitor msnbc. or any other cable snooze channels. but I'd venture a guess that MSNBC "leftists" hosts will IGNORE the subject. "nothing to see here".

If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

which would be 2 angles on the story, and would be news in itself. Would love to see/here the video clips posted if/when that happens....!

Maintaining the illusion of democracy is hard work!

he tweeted an article suggesting that this action just opened the door for immunity.

grand jury currently sitting would love to hear from Moscow Eddie.

It's as if he's making a case about something and he will damn well use whatever it takes to make that case, no matter if his supporting evidence has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

I'm very glad he has decided to do that.

He "decided" to do this but hasn't done it - why? Is this another single payer boondoggle? Obama is great at taking positions and then not following thru at all. No, I'm not happy he's "decicided" to do this. Will be overwhelmed with gratitude and surprise if he actually does it. I'm also not holding my breath.

Why are you so happy about this when nothing at all has been done to stop the travesty which has been ongoing under his administration, so far?

of the Constitutional rights of Americans WERE WRONG. It CAN pass, IF the people strongly support its passage, especially in an election year.

But just the acknowledgement from the WH supports all those of us who have been told 'that the Snowden Revelations were old news'. The WH doesn't agree with them, apparently, which will come as a shock to them! Let's see if THEY stick to THEIR claims that this was 'old news'.

It will almost certainly NEVER pass in the House. Are you kidding me? Those yahoos would vote that the sky wasn't blue if Obama came out with a "blue sky" pronouncement. The President knows they will never agree with him, this seems to be just another boondoggle (ala single payer). If he really wanted this, he'd just make the pronouncement and be done. This is his way of being for it yet against it at the same time. Seen this play before.

pitting Democrat against Democrat.

If you end metadata, you pretty much end Glenn's whining about same....and thus, cut his revenue.

Sowing division is more lucrative I guess

a take away point is the pattern of talking reform one day, and flipping on it's head that which was proposed/promised on a different day.

My comment isn't a rebuke of Greenwald's commentary. I was initially responding to the point which GG posed on the question of MSNBC's attention to this issue. Somehow that point seems to be ignored here, albeit admittedly minor in the overall larger question as to whether or not lip service to ending the program as being touted, will in fact be actualized.

Obama does have the authority and position of responsibility to end it with a stroke of a pen. Personally, I think it's rather telling that he hasn't chosen to.

He'll be able to say: Gosh, I tried but darn it, Congress refused to do it.

Congress must do so.

His comments are aimed at those who blindly supported and defended the indefensible assuming that was his opinion. So where will those who have been claiming meta data collection and storage was NEEDED to 'keep us safe' go now?

That is what he is addressing, NOT the issue, the minority who blindly follow. They must be devastated by this and since the same small circle have been bashing Greenwald and Snowden, it is vindication for them from the person that same group never disagrees with.

It's a form of schadenfreude which he has every right to point out, considering the lies they have told about him.

Don't mess with his fucking book release. "Thanks Obama, you @##$^&*)_*^%$@#!!!111 "

from Russia planned to co-ordinate to make the book as big as an explosion as possible. They're so fucking predictable.

because it is factually thin.

I do! Thrilled he is taking that position, which is the right thing to do.

"The fact of the matter is NSA metadata program needs to end." Not sure how I can be more clear

these guys...both Snowden and GG are Libertarians....they think they have found the perfect wedge issue....

What a farce they both are...I saw right through them from the start. This wasn't about spying for them AT ALL!

of course, I'm not a Democrat, just a far-left emoprog.

What?????

because he can't defend his silence on russia's behavior so he's deflecting. It's boringly predictable.

I find this article hysterically funny.

he may have to report on other countries and their deficiencies instead of pretending the US is the only one who spies on other countries. His whining is tiresome.

Greenwald specifically states that the proposal would end the bulk data collection program.

Do you support the presidents decision? Were you wrong in your previous support of the program?

I just don't run around in circles screaming with my hair on fire about it. So I can see how that fact would go unnoticed.

Some of the folks screaming the loudest tend to be unaware of existing laws. They think the telecommunications metadata belongs to them and not the telecommunications companies.

They think the FISA court was created yesterday, and have no idea why it was created in the first place.

They think the government is listening to their every word.

They claim we live in a police state.

The program needed to be reigned in ... but much of the hyperventilating and outrage about it has been overblown.

Glenn likes to feed that.

Metadata doesn't belong the to the gov't (without cause) IMO. Telecoms don't have the authority to toss you in jail or take your life.

Glenn was hero when he doing it to Bush and a scoundrel b/c he's consistent.

I did not say I agreed that program was unconstitutional. The supreme court would have to make that determination. I said I agreed the program should be reigned in.

Under current law, it is constitutional. As long as the warrants are going through the FISA court, its constitutional. And there have been warrants approved by the FISA court to obtain the telecom data.

You should know that when Bush was in office, he was bypassing the FISA court, and he was acting in an unconstitutional capacity.

The Obama administration has never bypassed the FISA court. They have acted within the existing laws.

This is a good example of one of my prior points ... people who don't actually know what laws exist, apparently have no idea that the Bush administration and the Obama administration have acted quite differently with regard to this program.

I think Glen does know this, and he actively works to obscure this reality.

The data belongs to the telecoms. The government has access and obtained copies, via warrants authorized by the FISA courts. That's constitutional under current law.

The President is proposing a stricter process for how the government obtains copies. That a good thing. The current laws are too broad.

What Bush did was illegal AND unconstitutional. What Obama is doing is legal and unconstitutional. The only difference is that Obama got a rubber stamp "general" warrant for every cell phone user in the country.

Under the current law it is "legal" but that current law is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Using your standard lots of previously approved horrible decisions by the Supreme Court would be fine.

He seems to think that something is constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

I disagree with you though that the current program is legal. It clearly violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Separate but Equal was once constitutional.
Money is speech is currently constitutional.

What is constitutional is matter of interpretation depending on the composition of judges deciding the case.

And without the leaks by Snowden the courts have ducked the question of constitutionality. Now that standing can be established the issue of constitutionality is currently being decided.

As opposed to the government. If data is necessary they simply have to get the telecoms to provide it but they would need a warrant first.

Bulk collection remains.

Or, when you call and want to dispute a charge, how should that work?

They've always kept the records on who calls who, when, and for how long.

But I can dislike the telecoms acquiring that data. I'd give up it's usefulness in many scenarios to not have corporations building data sets on me.

(as far as your scenario, it wouldn't matter as I am more of a pay up front type of person)

It's how they decide when to upgrade equipment.

You could encrypt the entire internet and still do load balancing and knowing where to upgrade.

In theory this changes nothing! Except! Now the telecoms get to decide if they will spy for the government!

Exactly what a pro-Citizens United hack would want.

Just more proof that the Snowden revelations were not ground breaking news and nothing changes. The fact that GG appears to be slowly disengaging and trying to change the narrative just underscores it.

Sid

Which is why I am asking. Perhaps because up to now, they have been defending the meta data collection. I imagine they still agree with that and now disagree with the president. I disagree with it of course, it is a huge violation of the 4th Amendment, so naturally I am delighted that the President agrees.

Also believing in the need for NSA reforms?

you're either with us or against us.

Same thing with the ACA. You can't think it's a good thing while also knowing that it still needs work.

Glenn is the best thing to ever happen to journalism. That would require suspending reality and pretending the US is the only country that collects data.

the hero worshipers fell for it hook line and sinker! This is what happens when you lie down with Libertarian dogs.....Welcome to the cutthroat world of politics!

decision to end it? I am thrilled to learn of this decision since I always opposed it as a 4th Amendment violation.

divide and conquer works on you....

To me, they have always meant something and I am glad to see they mean something to so many others including the administration.

Don't know why it is such a difficult question to answer frankly.

"Rule of Law" for so long we now defend the unconstitutional and illegal acts against all citizens of this earth?

Did you read my entire post? One can believe in the need for counter-terrorism while also believing in the need to reform it.

It's funny how the cloud of ODS lifts from my vision when he actually follows through on policies I support. If he keeps it up, my ODS may disappear forever.

However, Greenwald's prediction is likely to come true:

Yesterday, they claimed the NSA's doings were benign and necessary. Now that the boss says it's not, they applaud him.

Last I checked there's at least one other party involved in American politics.

Fuck yeah his detractors!

You keep good company.


Fuck that tool Greenwald, he's a ratfucker and you fell for it.

it's the Boglodytes.

BOG(the Barack Obama Group) again because they think it's an insult.

This coming from the glenn greenwald club of ..

Glenn Greenwald Once Again Proves He is a Hate-Oozing Douche

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188423/-Glenn-Greenwald-Once-Again-Proves-He-is-a-Hate-Oozing-Douche

Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims

Glenn Greenwald has Lost his Mind (either that or he’s just a greedy desperate liar trying to protect his brand)

The fact that seems to enrage Greenwald no end is that this is a widely-held assessment of Barack Obama's Presidency, and even more prominent on the global stage than domestically. That for people around the world, even in many Muslim countries where Greenwald seems to desperately want to believe the President is hated and feared, Barack Obama is in reality admired and general views of the United States have improved worldwide because of his Presidency. Frankly, the only people whose moral assessments of Obama resemble Greenwald's are the Taliban and the Tea Party.

....that you have just called good Democrats here (who voted twice for Obama) who criticize him TALIBAN and TEA PARTY??

Outrageous. Just outrageous.

me calling the "good Democrats" here Taliban and Tea party.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Seriously, fuck Glenn Greenwald.

got links?

You've got NO credibility any more, Mr. Brazilian.

you guys are all about credibility, whether it's singing the praises of bulk data collection, or praising Obama for "ending" the bulk data collection. why that is the very essence of credibility, is it not?

It was always about Obama.

Collecting metadata isn't the only thing the NSA is doing to us. I'm skeptical of everything a politician says at this point in time.

Democrats, Republicans switch views on NSA surveillance
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/06/11/democrats-republicans-switch-views-on-nsa-surveillance/

give that assurance, and position himself as outside the loop of what was going on?

I'm sorry, I wish he wasn't full of it, but it sure seems like he is.

Administration it is also wrong under a Democratic Administration. How on earth do you reason with someone who thinks like that?

You stifle their loony dissent with emoticons like this:

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Greenwald gives the loyalists too much credit, he seems to think they understand any of the positions they advocate for.

They don't, and that's why its so easy to turn on a dime and support any policy. Just give them a few hours to collect the blue links and select their dishonest rehtorical attack plan.