or what?

Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that a species can change into a more "primitive" form over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

We are Devo!

in total agreement with himself and his stubborn inability to change his views despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

President Obama has shown a willingness to have an open mind and change his views when warranted.

I guess one day we will find out. Perhaps what they are keeping from us is more threats than we know about. That's all I can think of.

When he sponsored the bill it was likely for a specific political purpose.

O the humanity!

and the Military Commissions Act. Then the spooks will have to do their own work.

Just ask Bushco.

Daily Beast (from today): How Barack Obama Made Friends With Big Brother

PB

In this regard I submit that even if liberals do sit silently while Obama does the same things (and more) that W did we have to at least admit to ourselves that we have been silent and hypocrites.

Let's at least admit it to ourselves, even if for reasons we don't want to speak (for example the good stuff we consider comes from Obama) that we may decide to continue to stay quite on this topic.

Liberals have been hypocrites on this issue. Part of change, which progressives supposedly believe in, is honesty first and foremost with yourself.

I don't think people left of center have been particularly quiet about this. Indeed, the biggest critics of this program in Congress (and maybe the only ones) have been Democratic representatives who are left of center.

Most of the time, most people say nothing about matters ranging from major to inconsequential. Doesn't mean they don't care or don't have an opinion. I say the criticisms this time around are about as vociferous as when Bush did it. Which says something about liberal/progressive consistency.

Of course, when you think about it, Republicans defending this type of intrusive surveillance have been unfortunately consistent, too. If we could only gain a bipartisan and/or non-partisan coalition to decry this assault on the 4th Amendment, worthwhile change might actually have a chance of happening.

Obama said it: If you want him to change his policies, make him do it. In this case, the best way to do it is to harangue your elected reps, so that the coalition I mentioned has a chance to form. But I am sorry to say I think in this country's continuing climate of fear, nothing is going to change until people feel more secure in general and concrete ways, such as a truly more equitable economy.

Wiretaps are a different sport. I know someone is talking to their mom is different than hearing both ends of a call while each is sitting in a cone of silence.

Still a moving story, but we are still talking billing records here. Not what Shrub was doing with installing recording devices inside the central office in hidden rooms...

UPDATE: 10:25 p.m. -- James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, has released his first on-the-record statement about the PRISM program, calling the disclosure of it “reprehensible” and insisting that Americans aren’t targeted. The full statement is below.

The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/obama-administration-prism-program_n_3399858.html?ref=topbar

Kinda like "collateral damage" when those damned drones "incidentally" shoot up a wedding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

It's even worse. They have real-time capabilities.

From the article:

"Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said."

Seriously, Paulie, you want to provide cover for this crap? Read the WaPo article stem to stern and think about it. This is as far from liberal thinking as it gets.

collected, according to Diane Feinstein. Looks like "Russia Today" just made this up.

"RT, also known as Russia Today, is an international multilingual Russian-based television network. Legally, it is registered as an autonomous non-profit organization (ANO)[3][4] founded in 2005 by agency RIA Novosti (but not owned) and funded by the federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation.[5][6] According to the Russian law, business entity "autonomous non-profit organization" hasn't owners [7]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

Is the Government Also Monitoring the CONTENT of Our Phone Calls?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959533

That's what I thought, and that's what I've been hearing all day on NPR, where they don't discuss how they "feel", but rather the facts of the case. I'm not saying I'm completely comfortable with this, but accusations of "warrantless wiretapping", and "illegal collection" are being thrown about by the anti-government, anti Obama (they're one in the same) factions, but they haven't been able to back up their accusations.

It may "feel" a bit creepy, but according to DiFi who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this has been known by their committee for more than 7 yrs, and a bi-partisan Congress even expanded the NSA authority in 2008. So, I'm trying to figure out the alledged "illegality".

this idiot.



http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/06/rise-and-shine-521/

If there is one thing we've learned, it is that once the facts are in, Obama generally comes down on the right side.

"Metadata" -- i.e., information about the call envelope, as opposed to the actual content of the communication -- is still information. It's still arguably a violation of the 4th Amendment. From lots of metadata, content can possibly be inferred. Moreover, I don't care if the government collects the metadata and never actually reviews it -- i.e., computers may run an algorithm looking for calls to certain foreign places, skipping over the rest of the data. BUT ALL THE METADATA REMAINS STORED ON GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS. Public knowledge of that alone might have a chilling effect on citizens in violation of their right to privacy, and that has an overall chilling effect on democracy.

This program casts what looks like an omnipresent net over domestic electronic communications. It doesn't matter if the intelligence agencies have good intentions. What matters is the potential for this program to devolve and become a tool of repression or oppression, in present or future hands. It's quite analagous to the subpeona of AP phone records, which itself has a chilling effect on journalism, even if that wasn't the government's objective.

Apparently, Congress has convinced itself that this program is a matter of vital national security, but I don't see how you save the village by destroying it. Notice that members of Congress at a hearing on this matter seemed mainly concerned only about whether THEIR calls were caught up in the data-collection operation. Self-interest may be a crummy substitute for sound public policy and concern for the rights of all their constituents, but it's a start.

I don't like it and am gobsmacked about the whole story, but there is no illegal wiretapping going on.

The odious piece of legislation should be immediately abolished by an act of congress.

Ok, I'm waiting.

I'm not happy about the NSA program, although that's been true since well before Obama. And it's not because I am convinced they're actually cataloging the content of all those phone calls, rather than the data concerning the sources and destinations. It's a matter of principle and a slippery slope, after all.

But what would any president do with that power? Use it. It's US law, however bad the law. Absent Congress reversing itself or a Supreme Court ruling against the law (likely, huh?), few commanders in chief would want to voluntarily constrain themselves. Go back in time four years. Obama is under heavy fire and has barely gotten to the point where he could pass meaningful legislation. Meanwhile, the tea party and GOP are screaming that Obama is a tyrant and, gasp!, a secret Muslim and thus a proto-terrorist. So say he doesn't use the full measure of powers granted him, there's a terrorist incident, and, boom, he's impeached. Of course, it was THEIR law that, more than anything, enabled whatever tyranny advanced under Obama's watch.

Maybe there's a saint of a policymaker out there who would have said, "Screw this shit; it's unconstitutional." But those guys are sadly few and far between, especially in high politics. Obama was protecting his flanks and using the powers at his command. I disagree with just how aggressive he has turned out to be, but it may have been the only thing granting him and not Mitt Romney this term in the White House. Better the devil you know.

But, moreover, we knew about this program while Bush was still in office; the Fourth Estate got worked up then. too, and the progressive response was pretty much the same. The difference? No one was going to take on Bush in any legal sense. And maybe they won't take on Obama, either, since the other side would like to still have this law on the books whenever they regain command. Arguably, if you're Obama, the very best way to get the law reformed or repealed is to actually USE it.

As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he does have that authority.

good to know he engaged in safe acts