and every bit as explosive, if not moreso, than the allegations put forward by Snowden. If true, they basically validate what a heck of a lot of folks have suspected for some time, and not in a good way.

when legislation on FISA was debated in both Houses of Congress. That is why I am shocked that many here thought the Snowden domestic spying info was new -- it really wasn't. (The international pieces were - but some was not even on US actions.)

Another thing is the NYT held this until 2005 --- it was written in late 2004, before the election - but withheld from the paper.

SUPPORT what he has done as it has CHANGED the attitude now that there is irrefutable evidence that they cannot push aside, or excuse AS THEY WERE DOING even AFTER they knew he had proof of what they were doing.

No we did NOT 'think it was new'. We did think we had elected Democrats to CHANGE THINGS, including THIS.

And President Obama was 'explaining' why we need not worry about the 'meta data' just months ago. Now he has stopped trying to 'explain it', thankfully. It was not making any sense anyhow.

There was no 'debate' in Congress, there was a disgraceful cover up in Congress when they decided to CHANGE THE LAW to protect Cheney et al AFTER they were exposed. And for those who have short memories, this President spoke out against the FISA Amendment, and then went and voted for it. His reasons made no sense, that nearly lost him the election airc. People like me had to work hard to try to convince people that if he was elected THEN he could do something about it.

PROOF, that is what Snowden provided, so there's no more weaseling out of what they have done. And in a sane country people would be going to jail for violating the Constitutional Rights of the American people. But it isn't a sane country as we've seen, where war criminals walk free and still influence our foreign policies, instead of sitting behind bars where they belong.

There was plenty of proof -- the Republican FISA bill gave the telecos retroactive immunity for the collection of phone numbers. It also led to a new process for getting the ok from a FISA court.

As to "no debate", are you CSPAN deprived? As to President Obama's August 2008 vote nearly "costing him the election" , that is really a stretch - and no polling would back you up there. I canvassed and phonebanked - as you did - it NEVER came up as an issue in any call or conversation I had.

The government ADMITTED that the story that was written in the NYT was true.

The point is that before that article, no one knew anything of the effort. There was far more already known when Snowden released his information.

the culprits. What was the talk about? Refresh my memory again? I heard NOTHING about prosecuting those who had VIOLATED THE LAW! Are you deprived of the information available explaining that they BROKE THE LAW??

Can you point me to the C-Span discussion on the law breaking and the hearings where Cheney and his gang of law breakers were brought before Congress to answer for their crimes??

I watched all of the coverage and found it despicable to be honest. Same old 'give the public the impression we're doing something' and then cover up the crime, quickly.

Now let's see what they do this time, when their lies, see Clapper, are thoroughly exposed WITH PROOF for the whole world to see.

And if you think that people were not outraged by that fake retroactive law, so transparently nothing BUT a cover for the crooks, you are wrong. We never forgot it, nor did millions of others.

But we did HOPE that it would fixed, AS WERE TOLD whenever we brought it up, 'if only we would elect Dems, to the WH, Congress and the Senate, THEN something would be done about it'. Well, here we are, six years later and nothing has changed, it has only gotten WORSE.

And why is Clapper, an old Bush loyalist, in that position still? ARe there no Democrats that could handle it?

I think Dickless Cheney has copies of every torture video made, also.

In 2008. This was the illegal wiretapping Obama spoke of during his run for the presidency.

They continued the program wrapped in the secrecy of the FISA court.

FISC was already in place but Bush declared he had the right to wiretap without a warrant. The FISA act was passed in 1979 because of Nixon's corruption.

But Congress made it retroactively legal after the story broke. Congress made it impossible to sue the telcom's like AT&T for complying with the wishes of the government, and then put the program under the FISA court. Previously the FISA court was limited to Foreign Intelligence, in other words they oversaw the search for spies and foreign intrigue in the United States.

The same program that was "Illegal" under Bush is now wrapped in the secrecy of the FISA court as if that makes it all better. The Government has been tapping fiber optic lines for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_tapping

Vodafone just released information showing that many Governments are doing that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025057640

Yes, the same people at the same organization are using the same techniques to listen to any phone call they want. Look how they are defending against the lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the EFF. Not that the Government was not doing this, not that the Government was absolutely innocent, the Government never argued this. What they said was that the ACLU could not prove that they were subject to wiretapping, and even if they were they could not show harm.

It was illegal when Bush was doing it, it's just as unconstitutional today. Hiding behind legal trickery is what we expect from corporations attempting to avoid responsibility, not the Government of, by, and for the people.

are the very same people who show up to condemn the slander against Bergdahl (for the record, I'm glad Bergdahl is home!)

What do these two situations have in common?

I've said next to nothing about him. OK, I explained the Presidential Pardon powers to someone earlier today before I went out to attack my lawn and beat it into submission, about all you can hope to do in Rural Georgia. Otherwise, I've been silent. The reason is that I don't understand a lot of things.

First, how do you get promoted twice while you are in captivity? He was captured as a PFC, but rescued as a Sergeant? I guess promotions are automatic now days, if we had left him in the custody of the Taliban a little longer, he might have come out a Lieutenant. If he'd been in twenty years, he might have come out a five star general. But while I am curious about that, I don't really care.

Honestly, I don't care if we dumped five guys we weren't supposed to be holding. I'm not sure how we did that since for the last few years we've heard nothing but how President Obama is unable to just release those prisoners, something about how the Rethugs had tied his hands, or something, but whatever.

I'm nearly catatonic with apathy about the whole deal. I don't care that his mates are out there running their mouths. I don't care that people are now digging into their background and impugning their service.

I know what you're thinking. I'm being sarcastic. But I don't respect the Military and slobber all over them as some sainted heroes like many here do. Because I've talked to many returned vets, willing to listen, and not fawning over them. Treating them like people with a story instead of some action movie god who single handedly fought off dozens of wild eyed lunatics to protect a virgin about to give birth to the salvation of humanity or something. They have horrific stories, about terrible things they've seen, and done. They fall into a few categories. The fuck it who gives a shit category. They did the things, and say they don't care because the alternative was either death, or serious annoyance at the rules. The I feel terrible category, and they do feel bad, and I feel bad for them. They had this image of doing the right thing, and the right thing wasn't ever an option. They believed the propaganda in other words.

The final category. They deserved it. The enemies, whoever they are, deserved it. They feel bad because they didn't have the opportunity to kill more. Because the only good one, is a dead one.

Of course, there are shades of the categories, but there you are. I just heard that Bergdahl is refusing to call himself anything but PFC, and won't speak to his parents on the phone. Since he was saying Thank God when he was captured, that makes as much sense as anything else we've heard about this completely screwed up situation. We'll never find the truth, and we'll never know. But we know this, several of his mates are not pleased to have him associated with them. That doesn't mean Bergdahl is wrong, but it does mean that the majority have an issue with him. I don't think that anything we've heard is truth. At most, a fraction of a truth.

Here's a name for you. Jessica Lynch. Remember her? Military officials ran out and told us that she fought like Rambo. That she was taken after running out of ammunition, how brass was laying around her as she bleeding from severe wounds snarling rage at the hundreds of attackers who surrounded her fought to the last finally being overwhelmed when she was out of ammunition and weak from blood loss. Or something along those lines.

Turns out, nothing like that really happened, and the world got angry at Lynch, because she wasn't Rambo who snarling fought the savages slaughtering dozens for each American loss. That's why I don't buy into this crap. Because I remember all of that and more.

I met an old man once at a memorial day ceremony who was wearing a hat. On the hat he had jump wings with three gold stars on them. I asked what those stars meant, and he told me that those were the number of jumps he'd made. I later looked it up. That meant he'd jumped in three combat actions in World War II. Three times this man had jumped out of an airplane over enemy territory. THREE TIMES. I'd probably have to change my underpants at the thought of the first time.

He had small medal pins on his shirt. No Silver stars, no huge heroism awards. He was just a regular soldier, who showed up and did what he believed to be his duty. So why is it we insist on turning every soldier who went to war into some sort of Rambo hero who surrounds the enemy single handed and fights against impossible odds and wins heroically as he limps to the chopper to have his shoulder wound and small scratch on his leg taken care of by a band aide? Why is it bad to show up and do nothing spectacular and just go home alive at the end of your tour? We turn every truck driver into Audie Murphy reincarnated in our minds, and that's wrong, it sets an impossible standard for them to live up to.

I don't get it, and I really don't think I want to. Because when I understand it, the users here will jump on me for figuring out a way to turn heroism into an attack on Obama or something. Anything that denies them some sort of we're awesome self congratulating post with three hundred replies is somehow a Rethug plot.

We're number one. At what I have no idea.

They are not related and shouldn't be conflated with each other.

FISC was set up to handle request within 24 hours. George Bush claimed to use his war powers to give him to right to wiretap without a warrant. As far as backdating laws, guess if you consider the act protecting the telecommunication from lawsuits was passed and signed in 1986 by Reagan. The FISA in 1979 and signed by Carter. The constitution was signed many years ago so I do not follow the back dated info.

BTW, American laws and Constitution does not cover the world.

Room 641A was located in San Francisco. That was the Bush Era that was revealed. But the exact same program is under way today. The exact same program is now shadow covered under the FISA, but there has been no consideration of the Constitutional question by the courts. The retroactive liability question was not decided under Reagan, but was enacted under Bush in 2008, to provide the telcoms with retroactive immunity.

21 Democratic Senators voted for the retroactive immunity. President Obama signed the re authorization in 2012, when many of us were shouting that he should not.

The world follows our lead. The world when they get caught can point to the United States and shout that they are doing it and it isn't a problem. What moral authority does the Government have to argue for civil rights when we ignore such protections as that Fourth Amendment. If we are unwilling to follow our laws, unwilling to respect the limits placed upon Government by the Constitution, then what are we? How long before that founding document might as well be written in pencil?

We are in the mess we are in because we kept putting the purported needs of the intelligence agencies above the Constitution. We may never get our fourth Amendment protections back, but we shouldn't be silent about that loss.

wiretapping with a warrant but this is in according to the Constitution. You may not like the FISC as the source of warrants but it does not make it illegal.

As far as the Room 641A I am not sure of the real intent and how it is used. I am not sure of the sources quoted on this and would have to have better verification but this will not happen if it really is dealing directly with NSA.

On congress. Good. Now that this is all settled in your mind, you'll be headed off and enjoying the rest of your day.

I hope you have a nice one. Good luck.

our services can be accessed, this has been available all of my life and will be for the rest of my life. As I have stated before if this is performed legally then our rights are not violated. If you are so scared of "spying" then you just may have to remove yourself from the communications grid, time will tell.

It's not MY communications I am worried about unknown parties having secret access. Whats the worst they can do? Even if, worst case I do something immoral or illegal that I wouldn't want others to know about, there's not much anyone would want from me that I could offer them. In the grander scheme of things, I am one vote in election years, one occasional body in the protest marches, and one irregular voice on the internet.

But them having access to my senators communications.. that concerns me. Them having access to the presidents communications? Thats a big f-ing deal. They vote on laws and budgets. They Write laws and budgets. They make decisions about wars and countries. I do not like the idea that anyone who reaches the very low bar of "as clever as snowden" could potentially access information that would allow them to blackmail my elected officials.

Even taking it down a notch, access to my local building inspector or mayor or police chief's information.. that also concerns me. Its less likely that missiles will fly due to wrongdoing there, but buildings could fall, tainted food could be served, etc. And While we can argue till the cows come home about whether a senator would allow themselves to be blackmailed at the cost of lives, and whether we have darker forces in our government that would do that blackmailing, there is absolutely NO doubt that our large corporations would be willing to pay nearly any price to avail themselves of the ability to turn inconvenient local governments whichever way netted them the most profit.

to our personal lives, and after the rogue employees decides to violate their non disclosure there is not any way to control the information and to whom it goes. With information available from credit card companies, mortgage companies, banks and other areas which has our personal information having phone call records collected is so very minor. Overplay of many who thinks every phone call is listened to and recorded and then those who believes this information. I was looking at some information in Wikipedia in which the sight even includes a note the information on the page needs to be verified some are taking this as the truth. Rumors has blown lots of information out of proportion but once these lies gets out they are repeated and more myths tacked onto them. It become paranoia.

I am far more concerned that the CIA might make a concerted effort to use the data they have gathered to convince senators to pad their budget than I am about a rogue employee might do something for their own personal benefit.

I am far more concerned that Walmart might buy access to "convince" senators that they should be allowed some tax advantage than I am about a rogue employee.

As to whether anyone has actually done these things? That is irrelevant. The fact is that numerous sources have confirmed that the infrastructure is there so that they, at will, CAN do these things if they so chose.

Do you really think Congressional members are blackmailed to vote a certain way because of some conversation "wiretapped"? Check and see how the NRA does their scoring, check to see how many lobbyists the NRA uses. But most of all, why should Congressional members be exempt especially since they make laws the rest of us has to live by, they need the same rules in which we live.

Both there and in the State department.

It was a very serious development when Robert Kagen's wife (One of the majors in PNAC and where the Iraq war came from) ended up in a high position and over the situation around Ukraine. That seems to suggest that the NeoCons are still very much still involved running major policy in Washington.

Why in the world would anyone want to spy on an unknown senator from Illinois? It makes no sense.

Tice, for all his good qualities and service in the past, is starting to come across as trying to remain 'relevant' by tagging the current President when there is nothing to support this other than his claim.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

or just sweep it under the rug.

But there may need to be something more substantial than one person's claims to make a difference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

you sound just like the NSA spokesperson

No evidence? No case. Testimony can be evidence but one person's is likely to be labeled heresay.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

about a tiny point in this. Sorry to get personal.
-
But arguing minutia just detracts from the real issues.

Tice made this claim about 2 years ago. It's old news. Apparently no one thought much of it then.

On edit: it was one year ago when Tice made this claim.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

to forget about all the other stuff. o well

Snowden 'proved' that we spy on other countries. Not illegal. He proved that the NSA temporarily stores phone metadata. Also not illegal.

Tice has nothing at all to back up his claim. In fact, the article in the OP fails to mention when he first claimed this. It's poorly written.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

You see, now here is evidence that the nail did, indeed, throw itself at the hammer!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Vodaphone "proved" that telecoms are providing the NSA with content.

will you now say, "wheres the proof Verizon and AT&T are supplying content"

Although I probably need to read up more on the Vodaphone business. At first glance it sounds a little like 'tubes on the Internet' stuff. But that's just my initial impression.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

pretty funny stuff

yeah, you should probably read up on some things, become more informed

They eat the covers.

reason to suspect there is a problem. And since the NSA/CIA cabal work for us, we have every right to find out what they are doing. The onus is on them to prove that they are working within the law, not on us to prove they arent. Of course there is little evidence because they are sealed by secrecy. That secrecy does not give them carte blanche to spy on whomever they wish.

We need Congressional hearings and if Tice wants to try to keep this in the public eye until we get such, then more power to him. And as for those that continue to try to quell all attempts to find out the truth, what's your motive? The same goes for those that continue to obsess about Snowden to distract us from finding out the truth. Maybe you dont want the truth.

I just think he needs to have more than claims to back up his allegations. It's been a year and so far...nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Bad analogy time. Let's say you are sitting in a restaurant and Snowden comes in and tells you your house was on fire. Would you demand more proof? Or would you be safe and check for yourself.

After 9/11 the NSA/CIA was given an unlimited budget and pretty much carte blanche authority to do what's necessary to protect us. IMO it's very likely that the NSA/CIA cabal pushed their authority to the limits and likely beyond. Sen Wyden indicated that the oversight by Congress was too limited to be effective. Tice, Snowden and others have said that they know that the NSA/CIA cabal have expanded their spying greatly most likely to cover all Americans.

It isnt up to them to prove anything. We have a responsibility to have our government representatives assure us that the NSA/CIA cabal is under Congressional control.

"It's been a year and so far...nothing. " I agree. It's been a year and Congress has done nothing. The President had the NSA/CIA cabal investigate themselves and they found nothing wrong. Is that good enough for you??

He backed out of his first opportunity to testify before Congress. He did testify once but then another scheduled testimony did not take place. The Inspector General found no evidence to support his claims.

Shortly after Snowden left the country is when Tice abruptly said that the NSA was spying on a young senator from Illinois. Why did he never mention this before? It sounds very much to me like someone who is experiencing a (hopefully) mild breakdown.

Snowden exhibits many of the same behavioral 'anomalies'. He was isolated, friendless, did not care about leaving his girlfriend or his family, and ran to Russia.

Start all the Congressional investigations you want. Start a petition for it. I have no problem with that in the slightest and I will support that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

if the NSA/CIA have exceeded their Constitutional limits.

We get it that you dont like Tice or Snowden. I am guessing you have a general distaste for whisle-blowers. I find that so strange for a politically liberal poster.

Maybe we'll get the truth about all of it, then.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

Who better to defend the NSA spying on us than a liberal on a liberal board.
No need to defend them on a conservitive site...they are always for it.

on whomever they wish. The SCOTUS actually covered that as a right of free speech.

let's see what is going on in the NSA and such.
-
Snowden will be available later ..or not. tice is in error a little maybe.. so what?
-
let's see what is going on in the NSA and such.

He was 'rumored' to be President someday even in the 60s. They made jokes about him on Get Smart.

That doesn't excuse the FBI or the NSA from spying for political purposes. But before we call for heads to roll, there needs to be evidence of something.

And for all this alleged blackmail going on, why is the NSA under fire today?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

But I would guess Reagan was only too cooperative.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Blackmail, which is the usual reason secret spy agencies spy on politicians.

Undemocratic in the extreme.

Which is why giving their treasons a sliver of plausible deniability is so reprehensible.

The people cough war criminals Cheney sides with include Henry Kissinger, who said about CIA illegally overthrowing democracy in Chile:

“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

Gee. That's how Kissinger and Cheney feel about democracy in America, too.

that they would become top targets of this nefarious wiretapping.

The NSA spying on the Senate and House means that one branch of government can trump the representatives of the People. That is un-Constitutional and grounds for immediate impeachment, IMFO.

Certainly helps me understand why Ms. Pelosi said, "Impeachment is off the table." Otherwise, if she hadn't, who knows what would have happened to her? She could've gotten the Treatment, like Valerie Plame or Col. Ted Westhusing or had an accident, like Paul Wellstone or John Kokal.

I'm curious.

Even if there was evidence of his not being a perfect soldier, I would support any effort to bring him home.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

is okay as long as they don't disagree with the NSA spying on the US citizenry. Got it.

I know you want to see me as some sort of right wing 'plant' but I'm not. I just refuse to join in the 'fun' unless there is evidence to support it. I think it's counterproductive to take sides without evidence to point one way or another.

If we don't show objectivity to our allies, we're cheating ourselves. And it makes us ripe for demagoguery.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Unless, of course, it is for a cause that discredits those you disagree with.

Is that an accurate assessment? Because "Tice makes ridiculous claims every year, etc." sounds a lot like slander to me. You made the statement, not me. I just enquired whether or not you noticed the irony there.

He sounds a little paranoid. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5066782

And I probably won't change my mind about Tice or Snowden. BUT...if either of them shows evidence of illegality on the part of the NSA or any other agency, I will wholeheartedly support their putting that evidence in the public light.

That would be true 'whistleblowing'. Giving yearly interviews or making statements from Russia does nothing to advance their stated causes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

if they discredit those whom a person disagrees with. I'm sure the slander against Bergdahl sounds accurate to many people, too.

I doesn't make either of those things right.

And if you weren't aware that Wikipedia entries can be altered by anybody, thus by those wanting to slant a leaning one way or another, I recommend that you investigate the site more thoroughly and cases where clear PR and propaganda has made it's way there.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

show some real evidence...If it cannot hold up in a court of law...its not evidence.

That's why I think Snowden doesn't fulfill that role. Even if he returns and is sentenced to 20 years, I would support him if he later turned up evidence of illegality.

And that's the truth.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

I have said over and over...I'm a realist. And that's reality...

And the sad part is...GG knows it....he played him!

in a long line of discussions I have had with this particular poster. The poster I replied to knows exactly why I asked the question that I did.

From the links in the story:

"Many of Tice’s allegations have been confirmed by other government whistleblowers.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/nsa-blackmailing-overseers-washington.html

And see this.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/nsa-spying-power.html"

That's an amorphous way to quantify things. So why isn't there a Congressional hearing?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

You state that the claims are "more outrageous every year or so."

Evidence please.

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

Also, Tice said nothing about Obama until shortly after Snowden made headlines. Why did he wait until then? It almost sounds like someone who thought his spotlight was being stolen.

"Tice comes with baggage" was the common refrain about him in the mid 2000s. I think both he and Snowden are a little 'off'.

But I have no problem whatsoever with starting a Congressional investigation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

But as far as "baggage" -- in the mid-2000's the Bushies were in charge and as I remember they wanted him shut down pretty damned badly. So, monkey poo flung in that epoch carries little weight with me unless it comes with very strong supporting documentation from a disinterested party. Besides that term never seemed to carry a lot of weight frankly -- I can't imagine a spook or spook-wannabe that doesn't have baggage.

But who knows? Fully admit you could be right and he could be "off" or seeking attention. After all, you are known by the quality of your associates and just look at the bunch of shady, borderline-personality-disorder liars he used to hang out with!

Anything is possible. As I said, even if Snowden or Tice now presented evidence of illegality, I would be in their corner.

Nothing so far passes the Randome Smell Test.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

LMAO. Your fake obtuseness wears thin in your constant defense of spying. Back off to ignore with you once again.

and easier to have Benghazi hearings...that is what America will swallow.

I am gonna wait for the usual crew to show up and justify this.

That's a sad fact.

Or is it just typical D.U. bullshit, predictably from the same crowd?

In 2005, Bush claimed the ability to spy on basically anyone without a warrant, under the claim that it was related to national security. Democrats in 2008 and 2009 strengthened the law to specifically make it clear that previous laws allowing the President limited wartime authority to spy on foreign terrorists did not apply to U.S. citizens. The NSA was then restricted to only tracking metadata, and even then to actually analyze the the calling patterns, they needed a FISA court order.

But please, show me where anyone is saying that the President has the unilateral authority to order U.S. citizen's phone calls tapped without court supervision, as Bush claimed the President could do.

I'm waiting.

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

Thanks for the thread, dixiegrrrrl.

Posted it with mixed feelings...
nice to know our suspicions are verified
but sure is lousy to know our suspicions were verfied.

I'm just wondering how many canaries in the coal mine have to die before some people realize the air is toxic?

I'm convinced that I'll die before this blood-sucking vampire. If perchance he does die before I do, I will be making a special trek to his grave to salt it.

J Edgar Hoover sound like an amateur.

Heck, I was going to fertilize it.

Why the Bush junta would have left office confident they would be free from any kind of investigations and charges. They likely have the Goods on most of the players.

People like Sen. Feinstein whose family members have extensive financial interests and dealings are undoubtedly easy to compromise.

Few among us don't have things we would be mortified if made public.

Greenwald has been telling us all nonstop that this whole thing has been *Obama's* doing since day one...

reality papers since they was not quite the claim

Of course you don't.

If the rest of the press had carried half as much water as Greenwald, these two would have long ago been in front of a Grand Jury.



Here's what Greenwald wrote on the subject of NSA abuse by them, when the story broke in 2007. In his story, Greenwald raised questions about the Comey visit to Ashcroft that have still to be answered -- seven long warmongering warprofiteering years later:

Instead, seven years and who-knows-how-many lives later, Bush and Cheney and the rest of their election thieving warmongering bankster oilmen posse continue merrily on their way, unpunished for lying America into war and making huge profits in the process.

Remember, it was Greenwald who stood up to Cheney and Bush. He covered the story and asked "Why?" to Bush and Cheney, way before any body in Corporate McPravda ever did.

Of course Cheney was running this. He had his shadow government in place from day 1 of dipshit's first administration. Send the boy off to Texas, and do what you want. He made himself VP, after looking at the list of possible candidates. All his plans were in place even before that. He took notice of the way J. Edgar Hoover kept HIS job using blackmail, tapes etc. and did likewise.

along with Rumsfeld...that is not to be ignored either.

As a Democrat, a DUer and as a citizen of the United States, I was proud to attend "Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" at Duquesne University.

One of the important speakers there I was privileged to meet and hear, Mr. Rex Bradford, president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, discussed “Political Assassinations Revealed: The Church Committee.” In addition to documenting numerable illegal and unconstitutional actions by the CIA, FBI, Pentagon and others in the secret government, are more than willing to lie about it to Under Oath to Congress, meaning there is no accountability for extralegal action, including political assassination and mass murder, to We the People.



Mr. Bradford focused on the Church Committee and its investigations in 1975, the year after Richard Milhous Nixon resigned.

Nixon, few remember, had been the victim of a Pentagon spy ring, the Moorer-Radford Affair, in 1971. The elections following Watergate, the resignation and revelations of the Church Committee brought us some important Liberal voices to Washington, including Henry Waxman and Patrick Leahy and other anti-war Democratic leaders. Their work included new laws for open government and sunshine statutes making public many records of import to democracy.

Gerald Ford, the first un-elected president and once a member of the Warren Commission, succeeded Nixon. With Ford, Donald Rumsfeld returned to the White House, accompanied by young Dick Cheney. Then, one day during an off-the-record luncheon for journalistic bigwigs, Ford accidentally revealed the CIA assassination program. One of the journalists present later related what happened to Daniel Schorr, who took the story worldwide via CBS News. The spaghetti hit the fan later on, during the congressional investigations, including the Pike Committee in the House.

“I can only imagine what Dick Cheney thought as New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug took on the National Security Agency,” Bradford said.

Bradford added that the Church Committee succeeded in opening up for full view the nefarious activities of U.S. intelligence agenencies: History. Rationales. Abuses. 14 Volumes of reports from a one-and-a-half-year investigation. The volumes' bland titles don't don’t cover the range of topics discussed within, from the FBI COINTELPRO operations for domestic disruption; to the harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; to the Joint FBI-CIA mail opening operation; to warrantless electronic surveillance and black bag jobs by FBI and CIA; illegal CIA domestic spying programs and operations, including CHAOS; covert operations and coup plotting against Chile and other nations; and other important topics. Bradford specifically mentioned:

The Church Committee revealed two important areas:

1.) Foreign assassination plotting by the CIA, and

2.) Limited review they conducted of some aspects of the (John F.) Kennedy assassination.

The Chuch Committee made public the secret history of the CIA Executive Action assassination program. It examined the CIA's efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba, Patrice Lumumba in Congo, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, and Rene Schneider of Chile. The committee also received info, but didn’t examine the cases of Achmed Sukarno in Indonesia and Papa Doc Duvallier in Haiti.

It's interesting to remember that the press revealed some spectacular information about the CIA program, including exploding sea shells, chemical to make Castro's beard fall off. The reality that is not mentioned is the operations were not Keystone Kops: They were deadly serious. Most of the CIA plots involved machine guns, rifles, pistols, explosives, poisons. And four of the five on the list are dead. Only Castro survived.

In 1967, President Johnson ordered a CIA Inspector General to investigate and report on the Castro plots. The resulting record, Bradford reported, is incomplete, especially missing reports of any interviews with John and Robert Kennedy and CIA's Desmond Fitzgerald and Allen Dulles. Later on, when the Church Committee investigated, other important witnesses had passed, including Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli -- the former found shot five times in the mouth while in federal protective custody and the latter found cut in pieces inside a 55 gallon oil drum floating off the coast of Florida.

Of course, "Plausible Denial" ended many an investigation. What's telling are the phony "201 Files" and other forged, faked, and back-dated documents that were part of the plans of operations from their inception, making it difficult to investigate the connections between participants and events. The record extant, however, is sufficient for people to make clear connections between players and events. This all from Mr. Bradford also brought to my mind we don’t get this in the nation's news media.

Thankfully, while omitted from Corporate McPravda, we have talked about them on DU: Some of the players in ZR Rifle and Operation 40 rose to prominence, including Porter Goss and Friend of Poppy Bush Felix Rodriguez.

Sen. Frank Church led an investigation into the NSA. The NSA launched a secret investigation into Sen. Frank Church. Guess which one was in the public interest? Church lost re-election in the "Reagan Landslide" of 1980. One more thing to remember: The Church Committee was the last time Congress investigated and held to task the intelligence community and the national security establishment, the secret government, that drives the policy of wars for profit and to make the rich get richer.

We need to prepare for a nationwide celebration when they go(like they did for Thatcher). These people cannot be allowed to be historically remembered as honored statesmen. Their legacies need to be remembered for what they are and what they did. A nationwide celebration needs to part of the story. It's the only way now, to deter these kinds of abuses from happening again.

...who said about NSA spying in 1975:

“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

-- Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) FDR New Deal, Liberal, Progressive, World War II combat veteran. A brave man, the NSA was turned on him. Coincidentally, he narrowly lost re-election a few years later.