Very, very little needs to be secret. They do it to avoid accountability.

I think the founding fathers would be horrified at the level of deceit practiced over the years by our government.

After all, "if they're not doing something wrong, what have they got to hide?"

I do not believe our representatives are good enough or smart enough or knowledgeable enough to do it properly.

Yes, you are correct in that there has not been nearly enough oversight, but the main problem is the abuse of the system by people who would be very happy if this were a dictatorship. I believe most of the military-secrecy complex is composed of fascists at heart, those who do not really believe in democracy "of the people, by the people, for the people" but who really love having all that power.

The system is corrupt, top to bottom and needs a good airing out.

The NSA fails to make the world into a problem-free planet. The military fails to stop all the wars or even to start new ones until politics weighs in.

People who rise to the top at corporations like power, too. They have fewer restrictions on their activities than the government does.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

They have traded arms for hostages. They armed the Afghans against the Soviets (among them Osama bin Laden).

They support heinous regimes in various parts of the world because it suits our agenda, though it's terribly undemocratic. The CIA has assassinated numerous leaders in South and Central America, or they have trained the ones who did (School of the Americas, now going by some other name).

The NSA and other alphabet soup agencies are simply evil, hazardous to democracy here and elsewhere.

They have spirited off ("renditioned&quot various people, most of them not at all nice, but a few innocent ones in for good measure, to places where they are they tortured. Mostly futilely.

No one is saying government is perfect or doesn't deserve surveillance on its own. But until Snowden and Greenwald show us evidence instead of suppositions and innuendo, most people seem to be content with living their lives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Evidence? Have you been on vacation for 10 years? BTW...on DU now :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025046363#post9

I'd expect the NSA to conduct spying in an international context. NSA spying wholesale on Americans is a big no-no. If an American has good reason of being suspected to be working with terrorists, but all means tap their shit; but only after proper warrants have been obtained. Or, turn the case over and have the FBI take care of them; they're the ones to handle domestic issues, if my memory serves correctly.

The CIA, I wouldn't have a problem with them if all they did was intelligence gathering. But they should just be gathering, not doing things like actively helping overthrow governments and assassinating people like they did in South American in the 1980s.

We need intelligence agencies but they need to be held in check by the executive, judicial, and congressional branches. As it is, they seem to be running their own secretive branch of the government with not enough (or any) oversight.

...AKA Eric Holder.

They would freak out they couldn't monitor average Americans. They want some terrorism out there because that's their excuse for monitoring everyone's cell phones in the trillion dollar drug war. Statistically speaking there are Zero terrorists. Why the hell do police depts have cell tower mimicking devices. These people don't track terrorists. They track drugs and activists.

That untruth gets repeated here as if it is gospel truth, it is nowhere near true.

Bin Laden himself groused that he never got one thing from the U.S.

No Arabs were trained or armed by this nation in Afghanistan, only Afghans got military training and weapons.

There has never been one person anywhere who came forth from either side with any evidence whatsoever that they got arms or training from this country, not one.

That doesn't make OBL a CIA employee.

This is pie in the sky idealism.

This is pie in the sky idealism, baked in the luxury of the protection afforded by that which is protested.

There aren't enough facepalms available on the internet for the times that has been said here.

These that want total transparency and information from American spy agencies so Americans can be easy pickings for all others who aren't so transparent.

Thicker than skippy peanut butter in Siberia. oiy.

communicated through cypher.

So you have no faith in government, nor people. Anarchy sounds fun until you want the stuff you have the luxury of taking for granted.

Too much secrecy and you turn into a dirty tricks operation.

If you don't like it, I'm not the one at whom you should be snarking.

But you knew that.

I'm like a bowl of cereal and you're the milk filling up my crevasses.

Your vapid prose has awakened in me a deep love for making already stupid analogies less connected with reality.

It isn't easy defending the indefensible.

My grandson uses it, and it seems to be at the most appropriate times. Just as you did.

Thank you.

If I really thought NSA was about going after actual terrorists that would be one thing. But like the people that fill their executive level ranks they have another agenda and that is to enrich themselves and run point for the .01%, stamp out dissent, monitor actual activists, gain leverage over politicians and judges and most offensive of all because it directly affects millions in this country they use their surveillance apparatus to assist the DEA daily to track and monitor people for normal criminal investigations...usually for marijuana...this is well documented for those who don't know about it.

Some say anyone who opposes Obamas foreign interventions or domestic surveillance is a Republican racist sent to disrupt. Others say those who endlessly attack Snowden and defend NSA are obvious republican paid shills who pretend to be democrats to disrupt the overwhelming opposition to surveillance. What a mess. There are actually people here defending the use of the word queer, butch and faggot. They say they can mean other things. Am I crazy to see this as totally insensitive?

Wow...on DU now. Stingray used for drugs not terrorism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025046363#post9

I don't care what people say about the need to throw away our civil liberties to "fight terrorism", which is always the excuse needed to push us closer each day to a complete police state.

The paranoia from 9/11 is too much for me to deal with! And I personally have experienced terrorism at my younger stages of life long before 9/11 happened and many others had to here in this country.

Back in the early 70's my 7th grade teacher's boyfriend was one of four airmen that were kidnapped by Turkish terrorists when I lived over there in a volatile time during the early 70's that had a lot of unrest from Red Brigade style terrorists all around that part of the world then that were going after Americans then. Had to live through Martial law, an Israeli diplomat assassination amongst other bombings, etc. that at times killed people and threatened many places I went then. I dealt with it and still believe in my rights to privacy! I wish more others here aren't so willing to throw that away to those that want to abuse us through that fear.

Here's a Rand report on that incident that reads like a movie script...

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADB021900

K
R

Went skiing twice in my life ... the first time I spent the morning with the Kiddies on the bunny slopes; got knocked over by a 5 year old, and spent the rest of the day ... playing in the snow ... skis off.

The second time, I didn't even make it to the bunny sloped before I fell and busted my butt, so I spent the entire day, in the lodge, chatting up folks.

down Mt. Bullshit, but I could be wrong.

The fact is that unless "we" are the top .01%
"we" have no representation in our government.

and neither should you, if you participate in the political process.

That is just so much bull. I've participated with my vote since I was legally allowed. I've worked the polls, helped campaigns, brought friends and family into the process. Once they are elected - we no longer matter.

We are unwanted until election time when they need us.

that Black folks know all to well. Yet, this is the world/political system in which we live. And I/we continue to vote for those that advance our interests and against those that do not.

Short of the revolution that so many dream is right around the corner, it is the only game in town.

I guess there is some benefit to NOT being politically engaged ... the time spent, can be spent actually living life.

a bit longer then you. I might be ready to actually live life and quit answering all the calls to "just vote".

Oh wait, It seems I have been actually living my life all along.

The way I live has improved and influenced more lives than any politician I ever cast a vote for.

you lose.

Because I am not comparing you to hitler. I am literally saying you are hitler. And of course I am kidding. I agree with your OP. Sorry if I should have put the sarcasm thingy.

See we should never disagree with each other. We all should remain in line and chuckle when someone has the gall to not question the government.

Most people are willing to give the government some secrecy leeway when it comes to spying on other governments and foreign nationals who might mean us harm.

But blanket "dragnet-style" surveillance of American citizens is not acceptable to me. And it's clear, at least to me, that this sort of thing has been happening.

We elect our representatives to do the jobs for us. We don't like what they're doing? Then we elect someone different.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

in our names, with our money?

As much as they can, anyways. Obviously there will always be things that need to be secret. What we could do is demand that they tell us what they can instead of 'attending' classified meetings by sending an intern in their places.

Trusting in Congress to do their damned jobs has turned out to not be the best attitude to have toward them. They've been running on automatic for too long.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Hmm?

If we don't like their response or their non-response, then they need to be fired. But I don't see mass demonstrations in Congress demanding that they do anything differently. Maybe that's an indictment of our passive society. Much of the government runs on automatic.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Enforcement of the law is the job of the Executive Branch.

Same thing with 'ordinary' crimes. If you don't press charges, no crime has occurred.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Clapper serves at the will of the President. He was allowed to lie with impunity.

'Inpunity' implies lying with abandon, multiple times, with no fear of consequences.

Clapper lied because he was forbidden from discussing the subject in public and the senator who asked him that question knew that. It was a 'gotcha' moment that most see as unavoidable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Congress makes the law. So who is it that "forbade" him from discussing the subject in public?

Why didn't he just refuse to answer? Or explain why he wasn't allowed to speak?

Why do you think the Senator wanted to put him on the spot like that? To get the truth out?

Doesn't it worry you that even U.S. Senators are having to pull stunts like that just to get some information out to their constituents about what is going on?

The question was, is NSA collecting bulk data? The damn question should've been asked in public...
We're living in an era of "forbidden" subjects, secret energy meetings, secret meetings with Big Pharma, secret trade agreements, secret oil spill removal, etc. Transparency is dead because anything that ends up reaming the public and benefiting the 1% is a national security issue.

Am I right?

A big fucking

Why can't we have a "people's rep"? Someone who has access to all the info and will 'report' to us on what he/she feels comfortable with reporting. Someone outside of Congress, of course.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

he'd end up in jail. They decide what we find out about. It's our job to just "trust" them. (And pay their salaries, of course.)

How about a 7-member "People's Rep"? Ordinary citizens who could decide what needed to be revealed and what needed to be kept secret? If nothing else, force the FISA court to review information that can be declassified.

There are ways to make the process more transparent without endangering people or resources. Better ways than stealing documents and running from the country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

And, for what it's worth, that "people's rep" thing isn't going to happen either. (Although, of course, I would support such an effort).

because the same folks that distrust government, will distrust the "People's Rep", because remember, "you have no representation unless you are the .01%" AND that People's Rep" will only be a puppet of the .01%.

Recently provoked a constitutional crisis with the Senate Intelligence committee.

The surveillance agencies are not dealing in good faith with our elected representatives. They have gone rogue.

And so there is no point to bandaid measures trying to keep the lid on.

...what is?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

No blanket warrants, no dragnet collections of metadata, no warehousing of the personal internet data of ordinary citizens.

Make it clear that if the agency continues any of these practices, any whistleblowers will be protected, and the perpetrators of the unwarranted surveillance will face prison time.

...and oversight that has some teeth in it.

NSA lies to Congress through commission or omission, someone goes to jail.

No more contractors. All work to be done by employees of the government, subject to strict sanctions.

I dunno. Get someone on it with brains and clout and integrity.

Somebody was paying attention in 8th Grade Civics!

A constitutional crisis ensued between just the CIA and the Senate Intelligence committee recently. And Clapper lied to Congress recently.

And very likely, the NSA is spying deeply on members of Congress.

And so the intelligence apparatus has gone rogue. Oversight is no longer possible. (If it ever truly was.)

I think it cuts to the fundamental problem, the apparatus has gone rogue, and the oversght people have become its pom pom girls.

Last edited Tue Jun 3, 2014, 07:27 PM - Edit history (1)

...with your main premise, that the intelligence apparatus, while supposed to be secretive, should include among its objectives secretly monitoring the legal activities of ordinary citizens-- even citizens of foreign nations-- without probable cause. Further, I think the nature of that probable cause and the process for applying it to justify surveillance should be completely transparent.

The argument that "they're supposed to be spies" ignores the corollary that spying to determine the military and industrial capacities of potential enemies is acceptable and prudent, but hoovering up any and all available data about ordinary citizens, even those with legitimate animosity toward the U.S., goes way too far. I don't want to live in a panopticon simply because the surveillance agencies can make it so.

It's really sad how often DU discussions deteriorate into such personal attacks. You support one action of the Obama administration, so you're a lackey, not to mention an Obamabot who believes The Leader can do no wrong. I oppose one such action, so I must secretly want Sarah Palin to be President, or (according to one post in this thread) I must "worship at the church of St. Snowden".

As for your specific point, I agree that transparency shouldn't get to the level of "Our informant Jeff Smith, of 1015 Cedar Avenue in Keystone City, heard Ibrahim Mansour make a remark that seemed sort of sympathetic to Muslim extremists, so we've gotten an order authorizing a tap on Mansour's home phone." There should, however, be transparency about what, in general, is being done, and on what basis. For example, although specific applications for probable cause needn't be made public, we should have a better idea of what standards are being applied and what evidence is considered acceptable.

You mention the collection of meta-data. As you acknowledge, we aren't certain that your summary is accurate, and even that much became known only well after the fact. That's an example of where more transparency is needed.

And that's clearly fine by the head of their branch of government.

But I'm sure you are much better qualified to judge them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

I would bet you'd change your tune if you were privy to all the information our intelligence services have. I bet you'd better understand that it's a much more complicated world than you imagined.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

At what?

I think you would find that things are not as easily determined as you think. I think the same could be said for myself.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Willing to give up freedom for security = anti-american.

...but I do think it is something you need to consider more. The very idea of people in power -- ANY power -- looking out for the common person's interests is not only silly, its dangerously naive. The history of the world is built on the fallacies of people trusting those in power; it is only transparency and the reach of the masses that have any potential of reining in the powerful, and the reach of the masses has been neutralized in the last 50 years or so.

I don't mean they need to publish every single bit of data collected or encountered, but there need to be hard-coded, hard-enforced -obvious- safeguards that even a common set of citizens can check for compliance. And if that means we out ourselves as spying on our friends and allies -- which we do, and they know it, and we know it -- then nothing has changed in terms of international relations. It's never been a question of 'are we spying on our allies', it's 'how many are we spying with and can they catch them all', and vice versa.

But faith that our elected representatives have our best interests in heart is tantamount to believing that fast food companies have our health interests at heart, or that arms dealers have our families' best interests at heart. It's nice to believe, it may even be comforting, but it's ultimately a fantasy.

to private contractors, who I don't have much faith in. And I don't think you're an authoritarian.

Last edited Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

especially, and as quite as it's kept (read: widely ignored) ... much of the contracted for information comes from groups/corporations that the most out-raged here, willingly and freely, provide.

But to conflate these two and claim that both should be witheld from the people is rather naive I think.

Practice must involve operational details that need to remain secret. What assets are where, what exactly was learned -- sure, needs to be secret.

Policy is the "why and how" and is the mandate of the people as is the law justifying it. We are proud of the fact, after all, that we live under "the rule of law." "Equal Justice Under Law" and all that.

What is it we always get told -- "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?"

Two way street, there buddy. If our policies and laws are truly above board, they should be proudly announced to our citizens. If all public communications is scanned and archived, if our faces are going to be scanned for virtual police lineups, then it should happen after the consent of the governed is given. We don't have to know the operational details, but we do have the right to generally know what is being done in our name.

After all, my taxes support this bullshit and I am governed by these laws -- I have every right to be informed in the policy sense. And I have a right to say no AND to criticize the political leaders that are not honest with me.

we know the "How and Why", it's that people don't like the "what"

We get glimpses of this as when Senator Sanders has to actually send a public letter in order to try to get the NSA to answer him if Congressional representatives phones are tapped...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/03/1266984/-Sanders-Ask-NSA-If-They-re-Tapping-Congress-As-Appeals-Ct-Backs-WH-Shielding-of-Phone-Records-Memo#

I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg of what's being done in secret and publicity stunts like Bernie Sanders' public letter are designed to alert us that even Congress isn't briefed....

... and they are at the mercy of agencies like the NSA (and the CIA - another glimpse of the iceberg occurred during the Feinstein/Oversight report brouhaha).

So yes. Consider yourself branded and exposed as extremely naive imo.

which they clearly are not.

It's not an opinion. Unfortunately, it's a disability, and it is one that puts us all in danger of a fascist state. You have an authoritarian personality.

or board, the state board, know you are providing diagnosis of unmet met people, over the internutz? Kid.

Methinks our friend there didn't even read the Wikipedia article she or he linked to.

"Authoritarian personality" is not a DSM/ICD diagnosis -- in other words, it's not a recognized mental health diagnosis. So it sure as hell isn't a "disability."

It's more a political state of being than a personality construct. As the wiki article itself states, "traditional research in authoritarianism or conservatism has confounded the psychological variables (e.g., personality characteristics) with the political criteria (conservative attitudes)." The article also points out that the entire concept of an "authoritarian personality" has been heavily criticized and questioned for over 25 years.

Aside from which, I remain completely unconvinced that acknowledging the possibility that some secrets might need to be kept within intelligence services is equal to authoritarianism. We seem to keep losing the idea of shades of grey around here lately. It's like listening to a Democratic version of right-wing rigidity -- "Our way is the only proper way to think! Anyone who disagrees is evil/wrong/stupid/a shill/a puppet/paid to post here/blah blah blah." Makes my head hurt.

Sorry, man. I guess calling you a kid would piss you off.
I understand that you are sincere in what you wrote in the OP, and I've read enough of your posts to see that you are probably a person with good intentions. But the pragmatic truth is that your beliefs and justifications regarding the innate need for a surveillance state are nonsense to most us.
The description of the authoritarian personality does fit well with the beliefs you've expressed. Rather than becoming frustrated that I am unable to show you that fascist leaders have always relied upon people with your condition to advance their atavistic goals in hopes that you will somehow...I don't know...wake up, I'll be avoiding discussions with you as we move forward.
Sorry.

but your "truth" is neither "pragmatic" or based in truth; rather it is based in a naïve notion of what "should be" that is only possible because of the stuff you deplore.

You keep talking about "fascist leaders" and "fascism", but truly doubt you understand the tern, other than it being "bad." I agree that fascism is "bad"; but then, I believe a lot of forms of government/governance are "bad", including anarchy.

"But the pragmatic truth is that your beliefs and justifications regarding the innate need for a surveillance state are nonsense to most us.".

The biggest issue is that FISA decisions are secret, which goes against all reason.

Even if you think there is a need for the NSA (I don't, more people die walking down the street than by terrorist acts), there's no logical argument that the NSA have the power to enact secret law.

Of course we know that the Supreme Court head justice now selects those who are on this court, which is already a problem.

Reggie Walton who heads it up was the judge who was BOTH times RANDOMLY selected to be the judge for Sibel Edmonds attempts to go to court over the problems in the FBI that she wanted to have heard and have her testify under oath about. BOTH times he ruled against having any court case for "State Secrets Privilege". He also BTW was the judge for Scooter Libby's case too.

And former FISA court head Colleen Kollar-Kotelly got her appointment to the FISA court about the same time she threw out the Microsoft Anti-trust ruling in court right before the midterm elections during Bush's first term too. Convenient timing and ruling to get on that court.

It needs to be ripped wide open and can be done so relatively easily. With the right votes.

when that knowledge starts in what is, and not what one pretends it to be.

Would you have even considered starting a thread like this if Mitt Romney were President?

and have no reason to lie to you.

Yes, I would have started this thread if people were calling for transparency and an end to secrecy for the intelligence agencies.

Just be happy knowing that the next Republican President is going to have access to unprecedented amounts of data on all American citizens. Hope he uses it wisely.

This was probably our last, best chance to dial back the surveillance state.

Oh sure the politicians mutter nice sounds, but as soon as they passed the Patriot Act and Created Homeland Security (which sounds like a nice Germanic phrase from the 1930's) they basically gave the keys over and said "Okay here it is. Just behave yourselves, please."

so the solution is not abandon the agencies, but force compliance.

Yeah, force compliance, oversight and everything else.

But there isn't much of that...and we've been lulled into complacency.

Which is why the pot needs to be stirred periodically. I wish it didn't have to be stirred by actions like tjose of Snowden.....But we're doing a piss poor job of paying attention and keeping it under control otherwise.

Are you sure you are in the right country?

I'm positive. See Post #18.

How does the form of government work you your world?

Let me guess ... a bunch of anonymous people post stuff to an anonymous message boards and stuff, like ... gets done!

to do the work which should be done by govt employees? Where's the return on that investment?

My problem with the NSA is that it cost way, way, way too much (as with most of the MIC), and it has too little oversight (a situation created & fostered by Republicans in Congress and the previous Administration. If nothing else, the Snowden debacle has provided substantial proof of this.)

The trouble with Snowden's fan club is that, just like the RW libertarians that provide their talking points, they distrust & despise every aspect of govt at every level, along with the democracy that spawned it, and are more than willing to lie to promote their views.