To them, getting CAUGHT at it was the stupid thing.

Snowden was not the first, or the second, or the third. He was just the least naive.

electronic surveillance programs. They're fun! They're easy! They involve very little risk or danger to human life -- in the eyes of the those doing the surveillance. It won't kill you, so it isn't torture. That makes it OK as far as they are concerned.

Bunch of nerds with blinders on. They can't see that they are causing horrible damage to our country. People do not like peeping toms. It's just a reality that any person with a bare minimum of social intelligence understands.

When they are using public restrooms, do they check out what other people are doing in the restroom stalls?

When they stay in hotels, do they roam the halls trying to hear snippets of conversations or whatever?

Do they walk through the restaurant smelling other peoples' food?

Do they put listening devices in the bedrooms of popular honeymoon hotels?

All of these things could seem harmless to a person with very limited social skills or ability.

But to normal people, most of us, they would seem sick and immature. Adolescent at best.

It might be fun to follow some of the members of Congress who support these spying activities and make I-phone videos of them as they meet with friends and eat in restaurants or are on their way around town. I wonder how they would feel to find the world watching them on YouTube the next morning. That's how we feel about their collecting our telephone records. (And most of our records are pretty boring. But still. Nobody's business. Especially not the government's.) Somebody listens to the telephone calls. Somebody watches those ubiquitous videos around our cities. Somebody looks at the charts of the correlations of our phone records.

And somebody who speaks very good German listens in on Angela Merkel's phone and everything going on in Berlin and, I suppose, in Bonn. That is utterly sick. I wonder if they hear the toilets flushing.

Sorry to be so vulgar, but you get the point. It's these programs that are utterly vulgar.

Does anyone think that there are terrorists in the German parliament? Hard for me to believe. Loving rules and following them rigorously are two qualities rightfully associated with the word "German." Rules. Rules. Rules. Will they cheat? If they think there is no rule prohibiting it. But the rules against terrorism have been made pretty clear in Europe, and the people in the German government are not likely to violate them.

If nothing else, this program is a huge waste of money.

He wasn't the president in 2002, doesn't make sense again. Give me a believable rumor, this tabloid crap does not give time frames or tell the whole story.

"German media say the US has been tapping the chancellor's phone since 2002, and Mr Obama was told in 2010."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24698142

sudden brief him? I could see if they said 2008 or 2009 but 2010 doesn't make sense. I also don't trust the report since Gen Alexander contradicted it before it came out. ?????

"The statement does not make it clear whether the president was informed of the bugging operation by other means."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24698142

It is really hard to believe that this was done without the President knowing. At the very least this would have been a serious breach of protocol between the heads of the agency and the President. If indeed true, then the president should immediate fire all personnel involved in covering it up from his knowledge.

But I have a hard time believing that he was not informed at some point.

Not just with the NSA, but the CIA and other major organizations within the government.

Was the language so vague and inclusive that it conveyed no meaningful knowledge? Was the information casually, very generally and quickly alluded to in a lengthy, boring brief otherwise full of information that Obama already knew -- a brief written so as to bore Obama and cause him to read it carelessly.

Or was he alerted loudly and clearly to the fact that we were eavesdropping on Merkel's own phone -- her private party-paid phone?

Was it presented in a brief that highlighted the fact?

In other words, was this presented by the intelligence agencies in a CYA memo designed to be ignored, or was it brought to the President's personal attention?

Makes a big difference.

And had been ongoing for over a decade. A wiretap that was already in place, routine. Since it's not new policy, it wouldn't have required Obama's approval. And with the enormous amount of spying NSA does every day, why would they bring this particular target phone to the new president's attention?

It's a bit like getting hired for a new job. You come into the company, there's a policy that's been in place for a decade, and you're not aware of it. Unless it directly affects your duties, would anyone take the time to tell you about that policy?

Masochists, all.

Eceryone has the vapors, as they are seeking the fainting couch ... "How could they have NOT told (President) Obama?" ... "What if German was tapping (President) Obama's phone?"

Here let me respond:

Every world leader knows that their electronic communications are being monitored by their "friends" and "foes." They know because they know what they are doing (or trying to do). They will change their communications protocol and go on with life ... assuming that the new protocol has been compromised.

To said governments, this "revelation" just requires them to show the proper amount of "out-rage", as now "the people" know what they knew.

to lock the door to your house, when you have a plate glass window? Why do you lock your car, when even the minimally competent car thief can be in your car and be gone before you can get from your window and out your front door?

I the words of my reitred cop Dad (R.I.P.) ... "Locks only dissuade honest folks and idiots."