• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies

Benghazi story needed a diversion - so the AP investigation story came out, not good,
The AP story needed a diversion - so Rosen story came out, not good,
The Rosen story needed a diversion - so the IRS story came out - ugh, not good,
So the IRS story needed a diversion - lets just tell the world we're investigating everyone - no more stories right?


It is odd that this is coming out now... all of a sudden.. since it has been pretty much common knowledge in Europe that the US government was doing this, since they requested all this information for anyone wanting to go to the US from European countries for 10 or so years now. The fact that the US wanted even more but got a no from the EU... stuff like sexual orientation and religion... but in the end only get access to our financial records...brilliant! When can I get access to the financial records of Americans who visit Europe?.. oh I cant..

On top of that there has been cases where financial transactions between two European countries have been blocked by the US federal government as "terrorist activity"... things like buying Cuban cigars.. all because for some strange reason sending money from one European country to another European country... some how happened to pass through a US server. Yes the US is actually a thief.

Or cases where domain names have been siezed by the US despite the domains running legal stuff targeting non Americans and all the content being hosted outside the US...

Sorry but nothing of this should be shocking anyone since it has been going on ever since 9/11 and in some non Internet related stuff... long before that.
 
Benghazi story needed a diversion - so the AP investigation story came out, not good,

There was no story about Benghazi... that was the problem. Only the faithful right wing rags were running with this so called story....

The AP story needed a diversion - so Rosen story came out, not good,

Fueled by a pissed off media... but in reality a non-story. Since when are journalists a "no touch" profession? How about these journalists actually do their freaking jobs for once instead cry over one of their own who might have assisted the enemy?

The Rosen story needed a diversion - so the IRS story came out - ugh, not good,

Fueled again by the media, and still not a story... Again the journalists should be doing their jobs, which this Rosen guy certainly does not since he is at Fox News... but again another non story.

So the IRS story needed a diversion - lets just tell the world we're investigating everyone - no more stories right?

A slight story, but twisted by the GOP as usual.... considering that the IRS did not break any laws and were doing their jobs. Oh and there was some of these groups who were actually trying to defraud the US government and the tax payer... why nothing about that from the right wing?
 
Regardless of when this was implemented, the public were lied to about what was implemented. In President Obama's excuse speeches today we find it works like this:
1) they collect ALL the data and save it (not just foreign, but both US and foreign users).
2) when they need to search for a specific individual/group they search the saved dataset.

Then he says "trust us". Apparently we're supposed to trust some nameless congress critters, a POTUS who has lied to us over and over and a court system that issued these blanket warrants in the first place. He assures us this data they're saving will never, ever be used against an American and that it will always and only be used for preventing terror attacks.

So, the government has all your data, but they promise to never look at it - are you comfortable with that?
 
usatoday, for the color crayon crowd:

Revelations that the U.S. government has been collecting a massive database of telephone usage by millions of Americans — citizens not suspected of any wrongdoing — created a firestorm Thursday that would be damaging for any administration. But it is is especially problematic for Obama because it stokes controversies he already was struggling to contain and reinforces criticism that has dogged him from the start.

Republicans have long depicted Obama as an advocate of a big, dangerous and overreaching government, back to the federal bailout of the auto industry he undertook during the financial crisis that greeted his first inauguration. That has been their fundamental philosophical objection to his signature Affordable Care Act, now just months away from implementation of its major provisions.

In recent weeks, it has fueled outrage over the targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of conservative Tea Party groups seeking non-profit status, and over the use of secret subpoenas and search warrants against the Associated Press and Fox News in Justice Department investigations of news leaks.

Now the headlines are focused on governmental monitoring that touches not just reporters but, apparently, just about anyone who makes a phone call. Thursday began with explosions over a story in The Guardian in London of a broad secret U.S. warrant for phone records from Verizon. By midday, Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein had confirmed the surveillance had been going on for years. By the end of the day, The Washington Post and The Guardian reported that a data-mining program targeting foreigners was tapping into such Internet companies as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Facebook.

As a U.S. senator from Illinois in 2007, Barack Obama blasted President George W. Bush for sweeping surveillance of Americans in the name of battling terrorism — just the sort of justification that Obama officials were making Thursday.

Then, Obama called it "a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand."

"I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom," he said in a speech then. "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."

But his critics also spanned the political spectrum. "Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?" former vice president Al Gore posted on Twitter. Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, an author of the Patriot Act that was used to obtain the court order, called it "excessive and un-American."

Obama's plan has been to be able to win approval for and sign a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress by fall. He hopes to be able to negotiate a big budget deal that would curb the deficit and put Medicare on a firmer long-term footing before the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race seize the political world.

Instead, explaining and defending these surveillance programs — what they are, how they work and why he thinks they're needed — are about to take up a lot of his time.

USAToday: Obama's agenda scorched in firestorm

explaining and defending...

blame bush, blame congress, blame the courts...

threaten to pull a michelle---you guys keep this up, i'm outta here

"sometime in the next three and a half years"

in san jose this morning (you should at least know where he is if you're gonna chime in as much as you do, i'd be embarrassed by such ignorance):

I will leave this office at some point -- sometime in the next three and a half years -- and after that I'll be a private citizen," he said.

Obama: Spying programs only modest invasion of privacy - Yahoo

big brother's bothered
 
Great...so now the government knows about my proclivity to search for granny porn...

You're safe, Obama said he promises not to look at or use the info against you ever, swearzies. Btw, you're a dem aren't you? You'll be safe - at least until we elect the next republican POTUS. :mrgreen:
 
Spoken straight from the "DNC" talking points,

4 dead people - no story happens all the time,
targeting the media to make sure they tote the line no big deal so long as you like living in a banana republic nothing to see here,
using the official power of govt to harrass political opposition - would be the norm in Iran - now America under this fascist regime,
spying on the entire country - just like China right!

By the way I have to hand it to Bob Beckle the spokesman of the left on the "FIVE" show on FOX noting the "fascism" of the left you so well illustated here in your "centrist" post.


There was no story about Benghazi... that was the problem. Only the faithful right wing rags were running with this so called story....



Fueled by a pissed off media... but in reality a non-story. Since when are journalists a "no touch" profession? How about these journalists actually do their freaking jobs for once instead cry over one of their own who might have assisted the enemy?



Fueled again by the media, and still not a story... Again the journalists should be doing their jobs, which this Rosen guy certainly does not since he is at Fox News... but again another non story.



A slight story, but twisted by the GOP as usual.... considering that the IRS did not break any laws and were doing their jobs. Oh and there was some of these groups who were actually trying to defraud the US government and the tax payer... why nothing about that from the right wing?
 
concerning what our most transparent president in history calls a lot of "hype," evidently generated by the partisans at wapo and the wingnuts at the guardian:

"That’s not to suggest that you just say ‘trust me, we’re doing the right thing, we know who the bad guys are,'" Obama insisted.

"With respect to my concerns about privacy issues: I will leave this office at some point -- sometime in the next three and a half years -- and after that I'll be a private citizen," he said. "And I suspect that on a list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their emails or listen to their phone calls, I’d probably be pretty high on that list. So it's not as though I don't have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected."

(yahoo above)

it's all about him

do you find obama odd?
 
Great...so now the government knows about my proclivity to search for granny porn...

Amongst others. But with this coming to light, perhaps I know the perfect person to run the operation...

gXO4eDo3wjcvpoytj1DzuIGJo1_250.gif
 
at least now that we know what they're doing, we can have a national discussion about whether or not we want that. this stuff goes back to the 90s (Carnivore,) was ramped up exponentially in the 2000s, and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. now that everyone's team has been a part of it, maybe we can put aside partisan bull**** and take a good look at the program, its results / effectiveness, and whether or not it's constitutional.

edit to add : i don't personally think that it is, and i see no way that it could be.
 
Only the faithful right wing rags were running with this so called story

LOL!

as of may 16:

beast: U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates - The Daily Beast

cbs: Lt Col Woods says his 16 member team pulled a month before attack - CBS News

the hill: GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security - The Hill's Global Affairs

wapo: White House secret meetings examine al-Qaeda threat in North Africa - The Washington Post

the hill: Report: FBI still not on scene in Benghazi - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

wsj: Militant Link to Libya Attack - WSJ.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

beast: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary - The Daily Beast

wapo: Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya - The Washington Post

ex: Dems join chorus questioning Obama on attack | WashingtonExaminer

wapo: Panetta says undetermined terrorist group carried out attack on US Consulate in Libya - The Washington Post

abc: Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video - ABC News

wsj: Gross Security Failure - WSJ.com

abc: Security Concerns Keep FBI From Scene of Ambassador's Murder, Official Says - ABC News

wapo: From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack - The Washington Post

youtube: Tammy Duckworth: Marines Should Have Been in Benghazi - YouTube

beast: Obama's Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast

cns: Lieberman Calls for Independent Investigation into Libyan Attack | CNS News

cnn: Exclusive: Amb. Chris Stevens worried about al Qaeda hit list – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

huffpo: CNN's Use Of Christopher Stevens' Journal Is 'Disgusting': State Dept.

cbs: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS

weekly standard: Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard

wsj: Miscues Before Libya Assault - WSJ

independent: US 'was warned of Libya embassy attack but did nothing' - Independent.ie

fox: Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News

buzzfeed: US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets

sentinel: Administration Insists Benghazi Attack Not Premeditated | Atlantic Sentinel

independent: Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

atlantic wire: Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List

cns: Where Was Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack?

cbs, 60 minutes: Obama Says Attacks In Libya And Egypt Are Just "Bumps In The Road" - YouTube

i have dozens more but sixty second clickers aren't really worth anyone's time

ostriches are amusing
 
so why did the odni under this most transparent president of all time lie to congress?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Thursday that he stood by what he told Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in March when he said that the National Security Agency does not "wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans.

"What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that," Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.

On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper responded: "No, sir." When Wyden followed up by asking, "It does not?" Clapper said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly."

James Clapper Clarifies Remarks Over NSA Snooping - NationalJournal.com

darn that george bush
 
at least now that we know what they're doing, we can have a national discussion about whether or not we want that. this stuff goes back to the 90s (Carnivore,) was ramped up exponentially in the 2000s, and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. now that everyone's team has been a part of it, maybe we can put aside partisan bull**** and take a good look at the program, its results / effectiveness, and how it could possibly be constitutional.

A national discussion would be fantastic, I just don't think it will happen.

Why does anyone seem to think that this is news? What did everyone think was happening when the NSA was building a giant bank of computers? What did people think the warrentless wire-tapping was all about? All you had to do was spend 30 seconds talking to a data-mining expert and you'd get a pretty good idea as to what that much computational power could do and why the NSA might want it. I could have written these stories in 2007. It's not like it would have taken all that much investigation.

But I think the worst part is how few people want to treat this as a trade off between liberty and the threat of terrorism. A terrorist event occurs and everyone panics, demanding that the government stops each and every possible attack. Anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion is instantly branded as soft on terror. Now people find out what the government was doing (AT THEIR REQUEST) and they instantly get up in arms about it. And anyone who wants to have a reasoned discussion is instantly branded as a fascist.

This is ultimately a choice, how much freedom are you willing to give up for safety. But we won't have that discussion until we mature past the point of demanding 100% freedom and 100% security.
 
A national discussion would be fantastic, I just don't think it will happen.

Why does anyone seem to think that this is news? What did everyone think was happening when the NSA was building a giant bank of computers? What did people think the warrentless wire-tapping was all about? All you had to do was spend 30 seconds talking to a data-mining expert and you'd get a pretty good idea as to what that much computational power could do and why the NSA might want it. I could have written these stories in 2007. It's not like it would have taken all that much investigation.

But I think the worst part is how few people want to treat this as a trade off between liberty and the threat of terrorism. A terrorist event occurs and everyone panics, demanding that the government stops each and every possible attack. Anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion is instantly branded as soft on terror. Now people find out what the government was doing (AT THEIR REQUEST) and they instantly get up in arms about it. And anyone who wants to have a reasoned discussion is instantly branded as a fascist.

This is ultimately a choice, how much freedom are you willing to give up for safety. But we won't have that discussion until we mature past the point of demanding 100% freedom and 100% security.

anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion about almost any issue is instantly branded a socialist / fascist / etc.

it's because of our stupid "go team" partisanship. when this ramped up in 2002, Republicans on the board i posted on told me i wanted to help the terrorists because i was leery of this kind of stuff. now it has come full circle, and each side pretty much takes the convenient position. i'd rather toss all of that, take a close look at what we're doing, and ask the question do we want to do this, and what should the limits be? that would be a much more fruitful discussion than "oh look, politician X who i hate is in charge, so i hate the NSA. when politician Y who i like is in charge, i love the NSA." does not compute, and it gets us nowhere.
 
anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion about almost any issue is instantly branded a socialist / fascist / etc.

it's because of our stupid "go team" partisanship. when this ramped up in 2002, Republicans on the board i posted on told me i wanted to help the terrorists because i was leery of this kind of stuff. now it has come full circle, and each side pretty much takes the convenient position. i'd rather toss all of that, take a close look at what we're doing, and ask the question do we want to do this, and what should the limits be? that would be a much more fruitful discussion than "oh look, politician X who i hate is in charge, so i hate the NSA. when politician Y who i like is in charge, i love the NSA." does not compute, and it gets us nowhere.

when this got created back then my very first thought was that this will be used politically. phone sex with your wife will eventually and not so miraculously be leaked to the echo-chambers when you decide to run for office. or you will be threatened with it if you stay in the race.

These are tools that have Nixon's and J Edgar Hoover's corpses growing boners.
 
anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion about almost any issue is instantly branded a socialist / fascist / etc.

it's because of our stupid "go team" partisanship. when this ramped up in 2002, Republicans on the board i posted on told me i wanted to help the terrorists because i was leery of this kind of stuff. now it has come full circle, and each side pretty much takes the convenient position. i'd rather toss all of that, take a close look at what we're doing, and ask the question do we want to do this, and what should the limits be? that would be a much more fruitful discussion than "oh look, politician X who i hate is in charge, so i hate the NSA. when politician Y who i like is in charge, i love the NSA." does not compute, and it gets us nowhere.

Sadly, you have my complete agreement.
 
maybe this is news to some people because they believed this guy:

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people – not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It’s time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

Barack Obama Statement on Surveillance | Firedoglake

why did clapper lie?
 
Spoken straight from the "DNC" talking points,

4 dead people - no story happens all the time,

Yes it does.. happened over 30 times under the last guy and there was nothing in Congress or in the media about it..

targeting the media to make sure they tote the line no big deal so long as you like living in a banana republic nothing to see here,

It was a leak investigation.. funny how when Manning leaked the right demanded assassination of the guy who published the so called secrets, and here a leak investigation that actually leaked information that threatened the US and its operatives... and all is fine... leaks are not a problem, but the fact that the administration is going after the leaker is badddd.

using the official power of govt to harrass political opposition - would be the norm in Iran - now America under this fascist regime,

Again.. the last guy did it, and the people complaining about it now were ... nothing to see here.. bla bla.. HYPOCRITES!

spying on the entire country - just like China right!

That you actually think that this did not go on... come on... reality check for **** sake.

By the way I have to hand it to Bob Beckle the spokesman of the left on the "FIVE" show on FOX noting the "fascism" of the left you so well illustated here in your "centrist" post.
 
Can you name those 29 other dead ambassadors for us? Yeah I have my doubts - fail

Oh and how is that leak investigation coming on the "attack" of Iran we engaged in electronically that came out - you know - a week ahead of Republican Convention?

So how much does the DNC pay you not to care about the hateful regime in charge? Or are you just a willing co conspirator?


Yes it does.. happened over 30 times under the last guy and there was nothing in Congress or in the media about it..



It was a leak investigation.. funny how when Manning leaked the right demanded assassination of the guy who published the so called secrets, and here a leak investigation that actually leaked information that threatened the US and its operatives... and all is fine... leaks are not a problem, but the fact that the administration is going after the leaker is badddd.



Again.. the last guy did it, and the people complaining about it now were ... nothing to see here.. bla bla.. HYPOCRITES!



That you actually think that this did not go on... come on... reality check for **** sake.

By the way I have to hand it to Bob Beckle the spokesman of the left on the "FIVE" show on FOX noting the "fascism" of the left you so well illustated here in your "centrist" post.
 
the fact that the administration is going after the leaker is bad

obama is troubled

“I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable," he said in a speech on national security policy on Thursday.

the lady is accusing

The New York Times editorial board accused Obama of going "beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."

the ignorant (by his own account) ag is creeping

"[F]or Attorney General Eric Holder, the gravity of the situation didn’t fully sink in until Monday morning when he read the [Washington] Post’s front-page story, sitting at his kitchen table," Daniel Klaidman reports for The Daily Beast. "...Holder knew that Justice would be besieged by the twin leak probes; but, according to aides, he was also beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse."

the wingnuts at cnn, cbs, reuters, nbc, mcclatchy, ap, nyt and huffpo are boycotting

CNN, Fox News, CBS News, Reuters, NBC News and McClatchy on Thursday joined The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Huffington Post in refusing to go to one of the Department of Justice’s off the record sessions about the department’s handling of investigations into journalists.

Obama 'troubled' by leak investigations - POLITICO.com

Eric Holder's 'remorse' - POLITICO.com

Growing boycott of Eric Holder media meetings - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com

ostriches are obstinately oblivious
 
what on the campaign trail in 08 was a "violation of the basic civil liberties of the american people" and an "abuse of power" is this morning in sunny san jose a "modest encroachment on privacy"

Obama On NSA Program: "Modest Encroachments On Privacy Are Involved" | RealClearPolitics

he's matured

Now, having said all that, you'll remember when I made that speech a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to shift out of a perpetual war mind-set, I specifically said that one of the things that we're going to have to discuss and debate is how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy because there are some tradeoffs involved.

I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy. I think it's a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate. And I think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president.

I think that's good that we're having this discussion but I think it's important for everybody to understand, and I think the American people understand that there are some tradeoffs involved. You know?

Obama: Surveillance Debate A "Sign of Maturity" That Wouldn't Have Happend 5-6 Years Ago | RealClearPolitics

insufferably self serving?

it's becoming endemic

President Obama debates himself - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

thank goodness the world is so safe, such self serving soul searching otherwise could become downright dangerous
 
another day, another hundred words...

another lie

Dem. Senator disputes Obama's claim that Congress was briefed - The Hill

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday disputed a claim President Obama made at a press conference only moments earlier, when the president said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) domestic phone surveillance program.

Merkley said only select members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the program, and that he was only aware of it because he obtained “special permission” to review the pertinent documents after hearing about it second-hand.

“I knew about the program because I specifically sought it out,” Merkley said on MSNBC. “It’s not something that’s briefed outside the Intelligence Committee. I had to get special permission to find out about the program. It raised concerns for me. … When I saw what was being done, I felt it was so out of sync with the plain language of the law and that it merited full public examination, and that’s why I called for the declassification.”

At a press conference on Friday, Obama said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the phone monitoring program.

But Merkley on Friday blasted the administration’s handling of the program, saying it had ignored requests from Congress to explain the NSA’s domestic surveillance actions, and that it was implementing the program in a way that did not follow the “standard of the law.”

Merkley argued that “plain language of the law” said that the NSA should only be allowed to collect phone data that related to an open investigation, but that the agency was using a “broad vacuum” to sweep up data from ordinary Americans.

“The administration hasn’t listened at all,” Merkley said. “We’ve asked for the rulings of the FISA court – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court – about how it interprets the laws Congress passes to be declassified so we can have a conversation with the American people about that.”

“For example, the question is — how is scooping up your cellphone data, which tracks where you are, my cellphone data, related to an investigation?” he asked. “That’s the plain language of the law — related to an investigation. Well, certainly anyone would hear that and think that’s a certain hurdle that has to be met. That there’s a crime or a potential crime or a potential national security threat that justifies scooping up your information and my information. Clearly the administration has not followed what an ordinary person would consider to be the standard of the law here, and has not been willing to release the opinion of the FISA court in how they’re interpreting that language, despite repeated requests from Congress to do so.”

“By the way,” Merkley continued. “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.”

“I don’t know how many people knew about it in Congress, but I suspect a very small number on the Intelligence Committee, so when the president says all members of Congress were briefed … well, I think a very small number of Senators in Congress had full details on these programs,” Merkley said.

darn that bush, he made him do it, y'know
 
The administration needs a good dose of the flu:

"All exits open, everybody out!"
 
A) The fact people seem to find this surprising amuses me.

B) If these companies are allowing access, your complaint is not with the government, but rather the systems which are allowing access.


A.) It'd be shocking if most people *didn't* find this shocking

B.) Of course the complaint should be with the government. It is the unholy marriage between the state and corporations that bore this mess. If the government really wanted those records, do you honestly believe corporations could have prevented it? Imagine all the underhanded, behind-the-scenes double-speak blackmail that goes on. The corporations are not faultless, but to say they are the primary entities at fault when it is the government that requested and utilized the data is mind boggling. This is an overextension of government power and a clear illustration of why we should not cede even more power to the world's most powerful conglomerate that not even mega-Cap corporations can even begin to stand up to: the US Government.
 
Back
Top Bottom