Greenwald Debunks Himself: NSA Targeting of a U.S. Citizen Requires a Warrant

snowden_greenwald_thenationThe NSA absolutely can not intentionally target U.S. citizens without an individual warrant. Even if you’re the most vocal Edward Snowden supporter in the universe, you have no choice but to acknowledge the truth and accuracy of this statement.

How can I say such a thing? On Thursday, Glenn Greenwald wrote it deep within his latest “bombshell” article for the Guardian: “To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant.” The “groups” Greenwald referred to here are U.S. persons or residents.

And there you go.

This is easily the biggest news to come out of Thursday’s dispatch from Snowden and Greenwald (or “Snowdenwald,” as I’ve been using as a character-saving portmanteau on Twitter). Not only does it totally decimate CNet’s journalistic blunder from last weekend about the NSA “admitting” to listening to calls without warrants, but it also represents a striking clarification in Greenwald’s reporting, not to mention Snowden’s claims of being able to target any American including the president at his own discretion and without a warrant. The “requires an individual warrant” line isn’t the centerpiece of the article by any stretch. It’s tossed into the mix almost as a throwaway when, in fact, there’s nothing incidental about it at all. I’ll come back to this presently.

The article covers two new Snowden documents from the Department of Justice that were submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Document #1 covers the NSA procedure for targeting foreigners for surveillance, and Document #2 covers the “minimization” process for safeguarding the privacy of American citizens. Greenwald’s lede centers around Document #1, and specifically cases in which the calls or emails of American citizens might be “inadvertently” swept up by the NSA and, apparently, used. For something. Turns out, “used” is the new “direct access” in that it’s unclear and potentially misleading, especially if you don’t read the whole article or the accompanying documents. It’s not difficult to histrionically leap to the assumption that the NSA can “use” accidentally-collected data as a back door to pry into your every detail and seek out a reason to hustle you off to Guantanamo.

The way the data is “used” appears to be innocuous — if it’s indeed intercepted and used at all (we don’t know how often this really happens). As you might’ve read, there’s a not insignificant process for destroying such communications known as “minimization,” and this procedure is covered extensively in Document #2. Greenwald writes:

The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

He goes on to describe various circumstances in which the domestic data that’s “inadvertently” swept up can, under very narrow circumstances, be retained by the NSA and “used” but only after the NSA director has approved the data retention, and for very specific national security reasons. According to Greenwald, those reasons are:

“significant foreign intelligence information”, “evidence of a crime”, “technical data base information” (such as encrypted communications), or “information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property”.

What Greenwald doesn’t mention is that any data that’s “inadvertently” collected from U.S. persons is “anonymized” until and if a warrant is sought and subsequently issued by the FISA court, and an investigation is launched on that U.S. person. According to Kurt Eichenwald, the data is pumped through an algorithm that strips it of proper names, replacing the names with a string of characters called “designators.” So, no, if somehow the hilarious cat meme you emailed to your Mom is accidentally caught up in the system, it’s likely destroyed or, if it’s retained for some reason, it doesn’t contain any of your personal information until after the FISA court approves an individual warrant and the personal information is de-crypted.

Speaking of Eichenwald, most if not all of Greenwald’s new “bombshell” reporting has already been made public. PRISM was covered in Eichenwald’s September, 2012 book, 500 Days, while the minimization process along with what happens to “inadvertently” collected data from U.S. persons was posted in a Vanity Fair article six days ago:

Now, anyone who discusses this process without also mentioning minimization procedures is also either very uninformed or intentionally hyping the story. Minimization is a term of art in the world of NSA intercepts which essentially means “stay out of American citizen’s business.” If information about specific Americans (or even foreigners inside the United States) is captured, those details must be removed from all records and cannot be shared with any other entity in the government unless it is necessary to understand and interpret related foreign intelligence or to protect lives from criminal threats. But passing intelligence information to criminal investigators requires several layers of review and is not easily approved; minimization procedures are meant to insure that information collected by the NSA isn’t used in routine criminal investigations.

This is a much more artfully written and concise interpretation of the same process Greenwald covered on Thursday. Whittled down even further, there’s a chance that one of your emails or phone calls could be accidentally intercepted by the NSA without a warrant. It’s unknown how seldom or often it happens, but when it does, we know for a fact that: 1) it’s not because you were targeted for investigation and surveillance, 2) there’s a good chance the communication will be summarily deleted as soon as it’s discovered, 3) if it’s not destroyed, it’s anonymized, and 4) if anything else needs to happen, it’s done so via stringent criteria and oversight by officials at the highest levels of authority.

Meanwhile, Greenwald, who always manages to cleverly shoehorn his agenda into his hard news reporting, accused the president of fibbing about the process of acquiring a warrant before targeting U.S persons.

…the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans’ call or email information without warrants.

Well, no, it doesn’t clash with what the president said. The president and other officials like FBI director Mueller have explicitly described the targeting of American communications and the use of a warrant to do so — not accidental data collection. Targeting. And targeting requires an individual warrant. Here’s what the president said to Charlie Rose:

…if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails… and have not. They cannot and have not, by law and by rule, and unless they — and usually it wouldn’t be “they,” it’d be the FBI — go to a court, and obtain a warrant. […] …it’s not targeting your emails unless it’s getting an individualized court order

Again, Greenwald’s own words: “To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant.” It’s also worth noting this Greenwald line: “Once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately.”

These statements somehow clash with what the president said? Um, how?

An alternate headline for Greenwald’s new article could be, “Shit Happens But There Are Numerous Bureaucratic Procedures To Prevent Shit From Happening.” In other words, based on Document #1, a U.S. person’s data might be accidentally collected when it shouldn’t have been, but when it is, it’s killed. And we have no idea how often this happens.

Sure there are holes and glitches that absolutely need to be addressed, and there’s certainly the potential for abuse somewhere along the line. But the same could be said about any institution — governmental, corporate or otherwise. As we’ve seen with TSA, for example, sometimes people are patted-down who shouldn’t be, leading to unnecessary invasions of privacy. The system isn’t perfect, but until it’s repaired, there appear to be procedures for minimizing any potential hiccups.

So what began two weeks ago as a story about the NSA following your every keystroke as you type it has been shaved down to accidental data collection and no targeting of citizens without a warrant.

Yawn.

[Inspiration for the headline courtesy of Charles Johnson.]

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

MEMBERS ONLY: The U.S./Cuba Thaw Marks the End of Cuban Exile Hardliners' Political Power

MEMBERS ONLY: The U.S./Cuba Thaw Marks the End of Cuban Exile Hardliners' Political Power

For decades Miami's Cuban-American community has wielded outsized influence and demanded candidates [Read more...]
If You Think Cuba's Bad, Here Are 7 U.S. Allies With Worse Human Rights Records

If You Think Cuba's Bad, Here Are 7 U.S. Allies With Worse Human Rights Records

If you think normalizing relations with Cuba is a bad idea, get ready to put these allies under revi[Read more...]
Obama Wins Cold War, Charts Course For His Legacy With Cuba Announcement
Jeb Bush's 6 Greatest Gaffes

Jeb Bush's 6 Greatest Gaffes

Just in time for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's possible exploration of maybe running for presid[Read more...]
Sony Cancels Release Of 'The Interview' and Sends the Worst Possible Message

Sony Cancels Release Of 'The Interview' and Sends the Worst Possible Message

How Sony -- and the American public -- respond to the hacking of the company's IT system is extremel[Read more...]
  • ConfusedCarrier

    Three months later, with all the exposure and truth finally revealed in fuller extent, how do you all feel now about defending this crap?

  • ConfusedCarrier

    If they can use the NDAA to hold a PERSON indefinitely without a charge, what the hell makes you think they won’t hold your data without a charge too? The naive person here is the article author who also probably believes that “change has come to America”. Foolish and dangerous, thats what this article is. Not “accurate” just full of sheep headed belief in the story he’s been “Fed”. No pun intended.

  • ConfusedCarrier

    ” if anything else needs to happen, it’s done so via stringent criteria and oversight by officials at the highest levels of authority.”

    You mean the corrupt authority who fed you all the BS you just wrote? Using stringent criteria like a pull down justification list and a ~maybe~ a warrant depending on who is spinning the story, issued by a judge the seeker probably eats lunch with?

    How much does the NSA pay YOU?

    • Captive Audience

      A judge in a corrupt court that rubber stamped everything that came through it.

      • ConfusedCarrier

        Yes, I should have been more clear about the probable ethics of the secret FISA court judges. Thanks for supplementing my point. You are absolutely right.

  • Jason Adan

    You are a disgrace.

  • PDH111

    The key word here is “minimization.” Basically Mr. Cesca’s argument is that minimization works and we should trust the government with their claims of protecting privacy. Greenwald is reporting that minimization is fraught with problems, and Snowden is saying that minimization is a farce.

    Even Mr. Cesca admits that US citizens/residents’ communications are being collected. He writes, “there’s a chance that one of your emails or phone calls could be accidentally intercepted by the NSA without a warrant. It’s unknown how seldom or often it happens.”

    Well, to me this is enough to warrant an extensive review of the processes in place.

    • Schneibster

      Errrmmmm, since no one’s been prosecuted using evidence like this, what exactly is your point?

      That is, of course, you understand, why there’s no data on it.

      • PDH111

        If what Snowden is claiming is true, especially with regards to the ability to bypass end-point privacy filters (and correct me if I’m wrong, but nobody in the government has yet to refute him on this point), then minimization should be extensively reviewed with the goal of ensuring the privacy of US citizens.

        • Schneibster

          It is possible to tell whether a person is lying if you can watch them.

          The key is the direction the eyes look.

          It has to do with the side of the brain that’s engaged; the creative or the logical.

  • Dartsblaster2011

    The error is a matter of semantics. What Mr. Cesca SHOULD have written is the NSA is not SUPPOSED to target Americans without a warrant. That does NOT however mean it CAN NOT do so. The warrant merely renders their doing so more quasi legal as the warrant can be approved by the secret FISA court and out of over 20,000 applications, has denied ONE.

    • Schneibster

      Please provide links to trials involving this “evidence” you’re making implicit claims about.

  • Richard_thunderbay

    I hope that Snowden enjoys the vodka provided by his handlers in Moscow, before moving on to his final destination. I’m sure that his accommodations will be quite comfortable, no matter where he ends up.

  • wardmundy

    The point you miss is that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches AND seizures. Seizing every communication between every individual in the United States, even if not targeted, still violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches AND seizures. Discovering illegal activity in the dragnet is a specific exception to the NSA’s own rules on forced destruction. All they do at that point is run to the FISA court and get their already executed search blessed. That effectively turns the Fourth Amendment into a worthless bunch of words… but you probably knew that.

    • Schneibster

      “Seizing every communication between every individual in the United States”

      Strawman alert.

      • wardmundy

        Do a little more reading. If you attach a fiber cable on the major backbones of the country, you get all of the data. That’s what the PRISM projet is all about.

        • Schneibster

          And record it on your magic pony’s disk farm, right?

          I’m arguing with the innumerate again.

          • wardmundy

            Magic pony disk farm opens this fall in Utah…

            http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=112007B6Q1I8&full_skip=1

          • Schneibster

            So you admit you already lied, since it’s not available now.

            Thanks, it’s important we keep track of these, you know, facts and stuff, so we can evaluate sources.

            Bye now.

            Aside: where do they find ‘em? Is teh stupid contagious?

          • wardmundy

            Hey, genius. The NSA has more than one site.

          • Schneibster

            But you don’t have any links for any of the others, right?

            Snicker.

            ETA: Booga booga booga, teh black dude is in charge of teh gumment and is surveillancing you for teh UN World Gummint and teh black helicopters.

            Go back to infowars, or StormFront, or whatever other rock you crawled out from underneath.

          • wardmundy
          • Schneibster

            PPPPPfffffBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Breitbart. Sorry, I left one out, along with Teh Glennbek.

            Everybody figured.

          • wardmundy

            Sorry. Was just trying to find a source that communicated on your level. You know the net has search engines now. You can actually find this stuff for yourself once you learn how to spell.

          • Schneibster

            Pitiful.

          • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

            When you quote this site you automatically lose.
            Next contestant please!

  • jezebel
    • Schneibster

      Wut?

      • jezebel

        Just wishful thinking :)

        Giggles won’t go to Gitmo; Obama stopped sending people there

        • gnocchi

          Right. He prefers murdering them.

          • Schneibster

            Wow, evidence?

            Never mind, you don’t have anything but some wingnut site; I mean, look at your avatar: a wingnut!

          • gnocchi

            Seriously, this is beyond ignorance. Google “drones”. Read. Then get back to me.

          • Schneibster

            Google “Barrett rifle.”

            Then tell me why a drone is different.

          • gnocchi

            Quit trolling. You asked a for evidence, I gave it to you. If you now want to change the subject, go bother someone else.

          • Schneibster

            If asking questions is “trolling” then refusing to answer is “running away.”

          • gnocchi

            When did you last have sex with your mother? Don’t run away, now!

          • Schneibster

            Ad hominem is the last refuge of the liar.

          • gnocchi

            Google “ad hominem”. Then explain how it’s different from what I just did. Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster
          • gnocchi

            Explain why you’re illiterate. Is it just comprehension or a deeper problem? Can you mother come down to the basement and explain those pages to you? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Sorry, you don’t have any references.

            You lose.

          • gnocchi

            Which part of this conversation was the hardest for your tiny brain to grasp? Drones? Ad hominems? Your mother? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Welcome to the Internets n00b.

            Next time bring references.

          • gnocchi

            Why don’t you understand simple evidence? Is it a learning disability? Were you dropped as a child? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            I sure do. You made claims without any.

            Next?

          • gnocchi

            Do you understand the concept of common knowledge? If I tell you the earth is round, do I need to provide a link? Are you in denial or just stupid? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            If you have no evidence you’re lying.

            The Internet is too easy for it to be anything else.

          • gnocchi

            Is lying another concept you don’t understand? Is that why you’re an Obama worshipper? Is that why you pretend you’ve never heard of Obama’s kill list? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Where’s your evidence, liar?

          • gnocchi

            Are you blind? Deaf? Do you have a braille computer? Is that why you’re so ignorant? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            I see no links.

            You’re lying.

          • gnocchi

            Is this the blind thing again? Do you not understand google? Did you just discover the internet tonight? Do you realize how stupid you look pretending not to know these widely circulated bits of knowledge? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Oh, I won’t run away.

            Go away spammer.

          • gnocchi

            Can you explain how going into a passive-aggressive cycle of spamming “liar” is different from running away? Do you understand that just posting the same unsupported insults over and over again is much more like spam than anything I’ve posted? Are you that much in need of attention? Did you parents ignore you as a child? Don’t run away! (except you already have)

          • Schneibster

            Sorry I don’t much care what spammers say to try to keep people from reading the article.

          • Schneibster

            Your only purpose appears to be to disrupt.

          • gnocchi

            Why do you keep responding if you think I’m disrupting? Is disrupting another concept you don’t understand? Are you mad because I made you look like an idiot? Or are you mad because you made you look like an idiot? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Because you always lie and never have any proof.

            I’ve seen you before around the ‘Net. You’re a disruptor. It’s your raison d’etre.

          • gnocchi

            Are you clinically brain damaged? Are you unable to see the difference between my responses — original and different each time — and your repetitive spam of “disruptor” and “liar”? Are you really that unaware of your own actions? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Bring it wingnut.

          • gnocchi

            Why is it you don’t understand basic concepts? Do you know what a wingnut is? Can you provide a link proving that I am one? You failed on ad hominem, are you sure you want to try again? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            I look at your avatar, it’s a wingnut.

            Looks simple to me.

            Next, wingnut?

          • gnocchi

            Is English your second language? Would it help if I put my posts through Google translate? Do you know if they support English to Dumbass conversion? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Looks like a wingnut to me.

            Sorry you’re all butthurt about it.

          • gnocchi

            Is butthurt another concept you don’t understand? Do you think Obama’s butt hurts when you crawl up in there? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            You’re just disrupting.

            I’m marking you for a spammer.

          • gnocchi

            Are you always this much of a crybaby? Are you finally realizing how much you’ve embarrassed yourself? Why don’t you understand the difference between spamming and replying to posts? Are you really this dumb? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            (teabag)

          • gnocchi

            Are you teabagging right now? Or are you just imagining it? Are you thinking of Obama or George Bush? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            And you without any evidence at all.

            If you have to ask…

          • Schneibster

            Hey, you know, gnocchi look a lot like balls.

          • gnocchi

            You’ve mentioned both balls and teabagging. Are you propositioning me? You know I look nothing like Obama, don’t you? Don’t run away!

          • Schneibster

            Just tellin’ ya you look like a pwnt teatraitor.

          • gnocchi

            Do words confuse you? Are you capable of thinking about anything but your love for Obama? Are you still pretending he doesn’t do drone strikes? Have you heard of signature strikes? Double taps? Know how many children President SparklePony has killed? Don’t run away!

      • jezebel

        Just wishful thinking :)

        Giggles won’t go to Gitmo; President Obama doesn’t send people there ;)

        • Schneibster

          Greenwald hasn’t done anything serious enough to prosecute. Stupidity is not a crime. Nor is cupidity.

          • jezebel

            It’s called collusion & conspiracy & it’s a federal crime.

          • Schneibster

            Nawww, I don’t buy that. A journalist has a responsibility to follow up. What I don’t like about Greenwald is that there is also an ethical responsibility to drop a story that doesn’t have sufficient evidence. And Greenwald ignored that and went for the big money.

          • jezebel

            Read the link I posted. Greenwald said he was working w/Snowden MONTHS AGO. Snowden said he ONLY took the NSA job to get info.

            COLLUSION & CONSPIRACY.

          • Schneibster

            I actually looked into this. It turned out to be bullshit. But it wasn’t obvious on it’s face; I can understand the evidence that underlies your post. Unfortunately it’s incorrect.

            You’ll hear me call things people say “lies” a lot; this one I think arose from a simple misunderstanding.

            Now, if you want to prosecute Snowden, I see no problem with that. But I think Greenwald is immune, unless he gets a libel suit filed against him. Which is a possibility in Britain; they have a problem with libel suits, actually. Unfortunately, it would be pretty bad publicity for the NSA. I doubt they will bother.

          • jezebel

            Collusion & conspiracy is a federal crime. Look it up

    • Pelle Svanslös

      I hope they send Greenwald to Gitmo

      Coz Obama defenders are OK with indefinite detention camps as long as a Dem is in office!

      The “liberal” mask slips a lil bit more to reveal the true neocon tendencies…

      • srmark

        It’s all about the PARTY!! Don’t ya know!

    • srmark

      You are real pathetic!

  • Schneibster

    Thanks, Bob. Great article. Keep them coming.

    I’ve been following the Snowjob, err, Snowden story and it’s getting funnier by the day. Seems he told the Hong Kong government about the NSA. So now they’re extraditing him for espionage. And the Chinese are stonewalling. This should get juicy.

    Oh, and don’t forget the part where he lied about his education on his resume.

  • Everythings_Jake

    Clearly, nothing has been revealed. Which is now sufficient to draw charges from a federal prosecutor that include 2 counts of violating the espionage act. So either Cesca has actually revealed that things are far more terrifying than normal terrifying (government prosecutes someone as a traitor for over-dramatization) or Cesca is an ass hat clown. Occam’s Razor says?

    • Schneibster

      Some people think the ravings of lunatics are prophecy.

  • reanimate

    Bart Gellman, the Washington Post reporter who broke the story, agrees with Greenwald:

    https://twitter.com/bartongellman/status/348075490948558850

    • Cobbesca

      Bob has never mentioned Gellman, therefore on Cesca world he does not exist nor do his journalistic interpretations count. Haven’t you been paying attention? /Snark rocket!
      Caw! Caw! Dinner is almost ready!

    • Schneibster

      The Washington Post had to walk their story back too:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6

      Now stop lying.

  • Lady Willpower

    Does anyone know what kind of career Greenwald had as a lawyer, in his past life? I’m curious. I sure hope he didn’t practice law the same way he practices journalism.

    Glenn’s brand of journalism basically boils down to “This is the truth I wish to believe. I will find corroborating evidence, no matter what it takes. I will take existing facts and massage them as much as possible. I will take existing words and parse them as much as possible. I will cut as many corners, take as many shortcuts, and creatively edit anything to end up with the story I desire. Don’t agree with me? That’s because you’re a brainwashed zombie”

    I would hate to think he argued law the same way.

    • Schneibster

      Bob’s not the only person who’s noted Greenwald’s bullshit.

      Greenwald is a Libertarian. He’s no progressive.

  • Shane McCutchen

    Does this guy work for the NSA?

  • Schneibster

    Jeez, you let Shingo comment here? I’m sure I’ll be fine then.

  • Shingo

    “This is easily the biggest news to come out of Thursday’s dispatch from Snowden and Greenwald (or “Snowdenwald,” as I’ve been using as a character-saving portmanteau on Twitter). Not only does it totally decimate CNet’s journalistic blunder from last weekend about the NSA “admitting” to listening to calls without warrants, but it also represents a striking clarification in Greenwald’s reporting, not to mention Snowden’s claims of being able to target any American including the president at his own discretion and without a warrant. ”

    What rubbish!!

    CNet made no journalistic blunder. It was Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, who revealed that “he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.””

    It was Nadletr who stated that if the NSA wanted “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required. It was not Greenlwald or CNet who was making that claim.

    Another epic fail from Cesca.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      CNET misrepresented what Nadler said.

      • Schneibster

        There’s a pretty good takedown of CNET’s article here.

        On this very site, and by this very contributor. Amazing.

    • nathkatun7

      You are a liar! Go out and Check what Congressman Nadler said.

      • Shingo

        Rubbish.

        Cesca has spun this to suggest that Nadler was not referring to what the NSA said, but Nadler explicitly states that they “heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day”.

        Who did they hear it from? General Alexander, the head of the NSA.

        • nathkatun7

          Do you any other words other than the word Rubbish? It seems to be your bottom line response to all comments that challenges your guru. Please supply a credible source for the quote from Congressman Nadler!

          • Shingo

            Good point, I should come up with other words to describe rubbish.

            >> Please supply a credible source for the quote from Congressman Nadler!

            Cesca has already done that. Have you bothered to read 215 yet or are you too lazy?

          • Schneibster

            I dunno, if you’re not smart enough to stop apologizing for Greenwald, or stop lying, I don’t see why you should be smart enough to come up with an alternative to “rubbish.”

          • Shingo

            If Greenwald is lying and his story doesn’t add up, then you Obama fanboys and girls have nothing to fear. But right now, it;’s clear you are pretty fearful.

          • Schneibster

            No, we’re tired of liars like you.

  • Shingo

    Bob Cesca’s sycophantic defense of Obama continues.

    NSA have chosen to go beyond even the broad authority that Section 215 confers. Using Section 215 to obtain records of every phone call made to, from or within the U.S. is inconsistent with Section 215 in three ways: it is overbroad, prospective and without meaningful judicial control.

    Overbreadth. First, the program collects data on virtually all calls in the U.S. The only way this can be squared with Section 215 is if the investigation for which these records are sought has been defined so broadly as to make the telephone calls of every person in the U.S. relevant to the investigation. This is fantastically overbroad, and was not contemplated by Congress when Section 215 was adopted.3 CDT has long warned that intelligence investigations to protect against terrorism can be much broader than investigations of criminal activity, and therefore warrant additional safeguards. However, this investigation seems even broader even than we could have imagined.

    Such overbroad investigation may be occurring under other authorities that do not even have any level of judicial review. For example, a National Security Letter (NSL) statute codified at 18 USC 2709 permits every FBI field office to demand of a communications service provider the name, address, length of service and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity upon mere certification that the information sought is relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Similar “relevant to an investigation” language appears in the NSL statutes that govern collection of customer financial records and credit records held by financial institutions and credit agencies. The same reasoning that makes all phone calls relevant to an investigation to prevent terrorism may make financial and credit records of every one relevant as well, and the NSA is reportedly collecting this information as well. The difference, of course, is that the FBI can compel financial institutions and credit bureaus to disclose the credit and financial information simply by writing a letter and without any level of judicial involvement.

    Prospective collection. Section 215 authorizes the FBI to obtain tangible things, but it is being used to obtain records that do not even exist when the order is issued. That is, the FBI uses Section 215 – a business records provision – for prospective surveillance. The Section 215 order that The Guardian published directs the provider to produce telephone metadata “on an ongoing daily basis” for the duration of the order. Congress did not contemplate prospective surveillance when it enacted Section 215. During the debate on the PATRIOT Act, no member of Congress and no intelligence official seeking the Section 215 authority cited an example of prospective surveillance that Section 215 would authorize.

    • nathkatun7

      This is all gibberish? What exactly is Section 215? Why not enumerate its provisions instead of repeating it over and over again just to give the impression that you know what you are talking about? Exactly who has been harmed by the NSA? If it is you personally why not narrate, in specific terms, how you have been harmed?

      • Shingo

        >> What exactly is Section 215?

        If you don’t know that, then there is no point in me wasting time explaining it to you. I am not here to educate you. Do your homework and then get back to me when you are less ignorant.

        >> Exactly who has been harmed by the NSA?

        What kind of a lame brained argument is that? Are you suggesting that no one is harmed by their privacy being violated? If someone breaks into your house and installs a camera in your bathroom and streams video of your wife showering on the internet – is it a crime if she doesn’t know about it?

        Grow up.

        • nathkatun7

          You are so full of manure! WTF do you think you are? I doubt that there is anything worth for the NSA to be bugging the likes of you. So whatever bizarre activities you engage in no one is interested in seeing them.

          • Shingo

            >> So whatever bizarre activities you engage in no one is interested in seeing them.

            I see, so again your perfectly happy with a police security state so long as your day to day existence is not affected. An I suppose you don;t have a problem with pedophiles or rapists so long as no one in your family is attacked by one.

            It’s all about protecting your King in the White House.

            Excellent logic

          • Schneibster

            “your perfectly happy with a police security state”

            Strawman alert.

            Not to mention grammar alert. Hir perfectly happy what, now?

          • nathkatun7

            “An I suppose you don;t have a problem with pedophiles or rapists so long as no one in your family is attacked by one.”

            Wow! You are absolutely amazing! For someone who is so proud of being a devotee of Bentham and Foucault your response defies normal logic? So you are suggesting that unless we get rid of NSA your family will end up being attacked by “pedophiles” and “rapists”

            Of course I have problems with “pedophiles” and “rapists” because their victims are concrete and not abstract. I also would have no problem if the police devise a program to try to protect my community from “pedophiles” and “rapists” even that program may mean a minimal invasion of my privacy! In other words, I consider catching “pedophiles” and “rapists” to be a greater good than protecting my privacy 100%. Just as I would like the government to protect me from potential terrorists, like those who took the lives of 3,000 people including a relative of mine.

            I submit to you that I am not as learned as you are, though
            I’ve read some of the philosophers you are quick to name drop. All I’ve been asking is really very simple: I want you and
            Glenn Greenwald, to cite me a specific and concrete example of where the government, under President Obama, has violated the privacy of an innocent person because of the NSA program. Once you do that I will be open to your diatribe against the President. All I’ve seen so far from you, and the other Greenwald devotees, are speculation of what might happen, irrespective of all the plainly instituted safeguards to protect privacy. So, please spare me your fear mongering examples of “pedophiles” and “rapists.” Because according to your logic, the government should not engage in extraordinary measures to try to protect people from pedophiles, rapists, and even more importantly, terrorists, if those measures do not conform, 100%, with your, and leader Greenwald’s interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

          • Shingo

            “Once you do that I will be open to your diatribe against the President.”

            OK, I’ll say this for the umpteenth time, so please read this carefully. This is not about basing Obama. Obama did not introduce the NSA and FBI surveillance system, he inherited it from Bush.

            During his first interview, Snowden stated very clearly that he held back from releasing these documents for some time because he had faith and hope that Obama would roll back these programs. Also, during the Bush Administration, Greenwald and many progressives attacked Bush for signing off warrantless wiretaps.

            In case you’ve forgotten, there were widespread calls by pro Democrat groups for Bush’s impeachment over this and pols showed that a majority of Americans wanted Congress to consider impeaching Bush.

            http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

            And need I remind you that Obama himself opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.

            So to suggest this is some witch hunt to get Obama is simply absurd.

            The reason behind the reaction from fierce Obama supporters is that because he’s the guy sitting in the Oval Office, he’s the one who looks bad and therefore the one who has suffered in the polls as a result of these revelations.

            Of the many promises Obama made when he came to office, he said he would update FISA to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.

            Of course, when Obama did update FISA, he included no such changes to oversight.

            >> So you are suggesting that unless we get rid of NSA your family will end up being attacked by “pedophiles” and “rapists”

            No, I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument that someone rights can be violated even if there isn’t any evidence they have suffered from those actions.

            >> Of course I have problems with “pedophiles” and “rapists” because their victims are concrete and not abstract.

            OK have it your way. Do you support the 4th Amendment or not? Do you support the removal of protections against search and seizure without probable cause from the Constitution?

            A simple yes or no will do.

          • nathkatun7

            WTF are you to demand from me “a simple yes or no”? We are not in Court. But, yes, for your sick gratification, I do support the 4th Amendment including the provision that allows the government to conduct searches based on probable cause. There is nothing in the conduct of NSA that has violated the 4th Amendment. Unless of course you don’t think FISA Courts are legitimate. In that case your beef should be with Congress and not with NSA or the Obama administration.

            The trouble with you is you are so arrogant that you think that I am such an ignorant person who knows nothing about the 4th Amendment. It’s really sad that some of you “holier than thou libertarian” progressives treat the 4th Amendment the way the gun nuts treat the 2nd Amendment. It’s as if you think that they are the only parts of the U.S. Constitution that are absolute. It would do you some good to review some of the Supreme Court cases that clearly show that the 4th Amendment does not guarantee absolute privacy in situations where crime is involved. As I have said repeatedly, I have not seen any one of you Greenwald supporters cite a specific example to show how government, without probable cause, has violated the privacy of an innocent American or an innocent person residing in America.

            I also realize you conveniently neglected to comment on the question whether you would be willing to give up some privacy if means helping the police to apprehend “pedophiles” and “rapists” in your neighborhood. Or are you so principled that you would rather have “pedophiles,” “rapists” and “terrorists,” in your community if trying to catch them, through mega data collection, may appear to slightly infringe on your 4th Amendment rights.

            As you meditate on the absolute 4th Amendment rights of privacy remember the famous words by a very wise Supreme Court justice about the limitations of the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause. Just because you have “freedom of speech” does not mean you should irresponsibly “yell fire in a
            crowded theatre.”

          • Shingo

            >> For someone who is so proud of being a devotee of Bentham and Foucault your response defies normal logic?

            When did I even mention Bentham and Foucault?
            You seem confused.

            >> So you are suggesting that unless we get rid of NSA your family will end up being attacked by “pedophiles” and “rapists”

            That’s not what I said and you know it, but I appreciate that with such a flimsy case to defend, you’re left with nothing more than straw men.

            >> In other words, I consider catching
            “pedophiles” and “rapists” to be a greater good than
            protecting my privacy 100%.

            Flawed argument. If “pedophiles” and
            “rapists” know they are being targeted (as do terrorists) then they will take measures to ensure they don’t get caught by surveillance. In spite of all the snooping, and in spite of it’s claims of success, the government cannot show any evidence they are stopping terror attacks, while there are more than a few examples that expose
            the surveillance program to be a failure.

            >> I want you and Glenn Greenwald, to cite me a specific
            and concrete example of where the government, under President Obama, has violated the privacy of an innocent person because of the NSA program.

            I would suggest you try reading Obama’s own Executive Order 13606 (pdf) (h/t DB) he himself issued:

            “I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people […] by their
            governments, facilitated by computer and network disruption, monitoring, and tracking by those governments, and abetted by entities […] that are complicit in their governments’ malign use of technology for those purposes, threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-24/pdf/2012-10034.pdf

            There is some truth in that statement. Privacy is a human right.

          • Shingo

            >> But, yes, for
            your sick gratification, I do support the 4th Amendment including the provision
            that allows the government to conduct searches based on probable cause.

            But that is not what the NSA is doing. The NSA is not applying for individual
            warrants but simply recording and intercepting everyone’s calls and emails
            without probable cause. They are claiming
            that the warrants allow them to use a dagnet to collect everything they can,
            and then go searchig for it later or just collecting it in case they decide
            they want to go looking for it.

            That means they are acting without probable cause.

            FBI director Mueller has said openly that applying for
            individual warrants would be too slow.
            So yes, the NSA is indeed violating the 4th Amendment.

            >> Unless of course
            you don’t think FISA Courts are legitimate.

            That’s an entirely different conversation. The issue is that the
            Obama administration, like the Bush Administration, is flouting FISA and applying
            their own interpreting of what their legal accountability to FISA is. Of
            course, they have determined that this interpretation of the law is secret so
            there is no way to know how they are going through FISA.

            >> The trouble with you is you are so arrogant that you
            think that I am such an ignorant person who knows nothing about the 4th
            Amendment.

            I don’t think you are ignorant so much as naive and slavishly
            obsessed with defending Obama.

            >> . It would do you some good to review some of the
            Supreme Court cases that clearly show that the 4th Amendment does not guarantee
            absolute privacy in situations where crime is involved.

            We’re not talking about situations where crimes are
            involved. The NSA and the government are
            collecting calls and emails and storing them indefinitely, not because of
            crimes, but because it’s easier for them to collect all the calls and emails
            they can and store them. Their rationale
            is that they can then go back and look through all those calls and emails at a
            later date if someone behaves suspicious in the future.

            The Supreme Court never even addressed whether this was legal or
            legitimate under the 4th Amendment.

            >> I have not seen
            any one of you Greenwald supporters cite a specific example to show how
            government, without probable cause, has violated the privacy of an innocent
            American or an innocent pe rson res iding in America.

            As I suggested in my other reply to you, for and read the Executive Order 13606 (pdf) (h/t DB) he himself issued:

            “I,
            BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that
            the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people […] by their
            governments, facilitated by computer and network disruption, monitoring, and
            tracking by those governments, and abetted by entities […] that are complicit
            in their governments’ malign use of technology for those purposes, threaten the
            national security and foreign policy of the United States.”‘

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-24/pdf/2012-10034.pdf

            According
            to Obama in 2012, privacy is a human right. Spying is destroying
            it.

            >> I also realize you
            conveniently neglected to comment on the question whether you would be willing
            to give up some privacy if means helping the police to apprehend
            “pedophiles” and “rapists” in your neighborhood.

            Prove to me that giving up some privacy helping the police to
            apprehend “pedophiles” and “rapists” and I’ll gove you an answer. As I pointed out, terrorists, “pedophiles”
            and “rapists” know they are being watched, so they are not going to
            fall victims to surveillance. That’s why
            we have the Boston Bombings. Even with
            the Russians raising red flags about the suspects travelling to Chechnya for
            long periods, the authorities were too
            busy bugging the public to take the warnings seriously.

    • Schneibster

      Maybe if you didn’t accuse anyone who doesn’t believe this horseshit of being an Obama sycophant.

      • Shingo

        I wouldn’t have if the apologists weren’t behaving like Obama sycophants.

        • Schneibster

          You’re the apologist- for Greenwald.

          • Shingo

            You’re the apologist- for both Obama and the Bush, seeing as it was Bush that introduced these policies.

          • Schneibster

            Poisoning the well.

            Do keep up with the lesson on logical fallacies, we’re all learning a lot.

          • Shingo

            No just stating the obvious.

            Obama didn’t invented these laws, he was powerless to stop them. But as POTUS he is now responsible so he owns them.

            This is not an Obama issue, it’s a bipartisan one.

          • Schneibster

            No, you’re using every lie, every logical fallacy, and every dirty debating trick you know to lynch the black President.

          • Shingo

            Lynching a Black president huh? Wow, talking about bottom feeding chneibster.

          • Schneibster

            Then why do you keep lying about him?

            Go ahead, we’re waiting.

          • Shingo

            What lies have I told about Obama?

          • Schneibster

            That Greenwald is right. Because that’s all he’s doing.

          • Shingo

            Not even the NSA is denying what Greenwald is saying dude and 3 former NSA whistelblowers have collaborated what Snowden has said.

            Even Clapper is now admitting he lied, in the nicest possible way.

          • Schneibster

            Ummmm, did you read the article we’re commenting on?

          • Shingo

            Of course Schneibster. We’ve been debating it for a week.

          • Schneibster

            No, we’re not “debating.” “Debating” does not include lying.

            I cannot believe you signed up on Cesca’s site to dis him. You’re as bad as a Paulbot or a Chomskoid.

            My immediate reaction is, “butthurt much?”

          • Schneibster

            Just askin’.

  • Barry Schwartz

    The reason Greenwald gives for NSA saving encrypted communications supports the theory that encryption helps one keep communications private. It vaguely implies they are collecting samples of encrypted data for study. Doing so, of course, would be useful for cryptography research. They wouldn’t need to study something they already knew (through magic?) how to decrypt.

    That the EFF has expressed concern about the activity is not a bad thing. Indeed, one would expect and hope for EFF to take a more extreme position than what they actually hoped to achieve.

    • Schneibster

      The Sieve of Eratosthenes is the most effective algorithm for breaking large prime public key encryption.

      It takes an astronomical amount of computing. I’m not hyperbolizing; I mean computing time comparable to the amount of computation necessary to describe the evolution of the universe so far in terms of its component elementary particles.

      • Barry Schwartz

        That assumes no special clues in the particular instance, and that NSA doesn’t know a more effective algorithm. How they would manage to do the latter in a scenario that isn’t preposterous is difficult to fathom. Mathematics isn’t a problem you can throw money at to achieve results in isolation of the world community; you would have to have a Ramanujan under lock and key somewhere, pumping out unexpected results, in complete secrecy.

        • Schneibster

          “Ramanujan under lock and key somewhere, pumping out unexpected results”

          There is actually hardware specialized to The Sieve. Most 1024 bit keys yield in an average of a month. 2048 bit keys would require longer than the history of the human race; 4096 bit keys would require longer than the age of the universe. On average, of course.

          Anyway, the last time I checked. There was speculation IIRC that it might get reduced to twenty days by mid-century.

  • Badgerite

    Having seen how detailed the documents released are I now know why there was such secrecy maintained and what Michael Hayden meant when he said that knowledge of the system would allow someone to figure out how to evade it. I want Congress to do the oversight. Not Snowden or Glen Greenwald. I absolutely think he should be prosecuted for this.

    • Shingo

      “I absolutely think he should be prosecuted for this.”

      And what if the Obama administration is found to have broken the law? Do you think Obama should be impeached?

      • KarenJ

        Only if Bush and all his “usual suspects” are tried and convicted as war criminals first. We KNOW they are war criminals, we just need the lawyers to do their job.

        Yeah, I know I’m talking about Eric Holder, the reluctant DoJ AG. That’s why nothing will happen to Obama or his administration either.

        • nathkatun7

          If you already know they are war criminals then why bother trying them? I guess you’ve never heard of the of the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

        • Schneibster

          A nuanced point of view.

          You should be even more specific; it fits your POV well.

          Cheney and Bush should be indicted, along with everyone along the chain of command, for waterboarding–torturing, by US legal precedent– the insane Abu Zubaydah, who has brain damage from a mortar shell decades ago and was having conversations about nuclear weapons with his imaginary friend in his diary. Yes they really were stupid enough to torture a crazy dude because of his scary beliefs.

          Bush should be indicted in addition for war crimes for invading Iraq. They posed no threat, had no WMD, and were posing about how bad they were to avoid being invaded by Iran and their allies. Bush used their posing, knowing it was posing because he’d been told so by numerous intelligence analysts who he’d had demoted because they didn’t say what he wanted to hear. His excuse isn’t even as good as he wanted the money; he just wanted revenge because Sodom Whoinsane threatened his Poppy.

          I could continue, shredding the so-called “evidence,” but Joe Wilson did a better job than I ever could.

      • nathkatun7

        If there is concrete, unimpeachable, evidence that PRESIDENT Obama (and not just some amorphous “Obama administration”) broke the law, or authorized others to break the law, then he must be impeached and removed from office! I know you hate calling him President, but, unfortunately, he is the President of the United states Until January 19, 2017!

        • Shingo

          >> I know you hate calling him President, but, unfortunately, he is the President of the United states Until January 19, 2017!

          I have no problem with calling him president, but I never referred to Bush as the President so why should I waste my time with formalities.

          it might surprise you to know that I am grateful he is president and no Romney. That doesn’t mean he gets a free pass or should be held to different standards that a Republican president. Obama has had nearly 5 years to undo the crimes and wind back the draconian laws passed by Bush and he has not only failed to do both, he has upped the ante.

          • nathkatun7

            Here is my proposal! Please run for President and show us how it’s done.

          • Schneibster

            Nut indeed.

            So is that because he’s a man, or because he’s black?

            Just askin’.

      • Schneibster

        How come you’re so anxious to have Obama impeached?

        Got a little prejudice problem going there, Shingo?

        • Shingo

          So it’s OK to demand Swonden be prosecuted for crimes but not OK for Obama to be impeached for his own?

          • Schneibster

            Strawman alert.

  • Badgerite

    Here’s a disturbing fact; the attackers on 9/11 only killed around 3,000 Americans. But they attacked the downtown of one of our most populous cities at about the time the buildings and streets would be filling up with people. They were going for a higher death toll, probably in the tens of thousands. And they weren’t done. There were lots of plots on the table. So, while you are screaming about ‘Big Brother’ you might want to remember that.

    • adept2u

      I often wonder if all the people who are advocating stirring up geopolitical stews are aware of Able Archer, and what underlying “secret” things they are playing with.

    • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

      “But 9/11″ isn’t a very good defense. But since you raised it, could you tell me what terror attacks any NSA program stopped?

      • ASkepticalLiberal

        Well… you see there as that guy who once thought that it might be cool to blow up the NYSE, but never did anything to accomplish it. And then there was that other guy who raised some money and sent it to Somalia. Oh, and the guy who was a DEA informant, David Headley. Of course the people who actually were involved in that investigation have adamantly claimed that these programs were not essential to capturing him, but that didn’t stop Gen. Alexander from citing that case.

    • ASkepticalLiberal

      Even more disturbing: it is becoming impossible to distinguish liberals under Barack Obama from conservatives under George Bush.

      • Lady Willpower

        This comment is why no one takes you guys seriously.

      • Schneibster

        Libertardian “They’re All The Same” propaganda alert.

    • Big3Kansas

      You should watch this video, since it’s obvious you still believe the Official 9/11 Story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qCzrtV2O0

      • D_C_Wilson

        Oh look everyone, a truther moron!

        Go back to Infowars, idiot.

        • Big3Kansas

          Yes, because you clearly display your intelligence by hurling insults. Have a nice afternoon now.

          • D_C_Wilson

            You’re an idiot. Saying that isn’t hurling an insult. It’s just stating a fact.

          • Big3Kansas

            I’m an idiot for not accepting the convoluted official government explanation for 9/11? When Sylverstein the guy who purchased the WTC’s buildings in July of 2001, and immediately took insurance polices out on them in case of terrorist acts. Who then on the day of 9/11 told them to pull building 7. And building 7 collapsed at free fall speed perfectly into it’s own footprint. While the BBC news in Europe reported that building 7 collapsed a full 20 minutes before it even collapsed, with it still clearly standing in the background of the newscast they were reporting it on? When nano-thermite particles were found in the dust. When numerous 9/11 witness whistle-blowers have mysteriously died in alarming numbers.

            I’ll gladly accept the term idiot as a compliment coming from you. If that makes me an idiot, then I’m sorry to inform you, in comparison that would make you at best a lobotomized person with down syndrome.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Yes, you’re an idiot and like most idiots, you’ve managed to convince yourself that you’re actually smarter that everyone else. Sarah Palin is a prime example of this syndrome.

            Remember, when making your tinfoil hat, it’s shiny side out. Otherwise, it won’t reflect the government’s mind control rays.

          • Schneibster

            Check out “Dunning-Kruger syndrome.” The stupider they are, the surer they are they’re right.

          • Schneibster

            Jeez, there are still Troofers?

            I thought they all died of gangrene from stabbing themselves in the face while trying to eat.

          • Schneibster

            This may be the most important thing I’ve heard anyone say in the last month.

          • Lady Willpower

            Chemtrails, dude. And fluoride. Also, Ruby Ridge!

          • Big3Kansas

            And you’re joking about chem-trails and fluoride. You can research all that information on your own. The government literally has 50 different uses for chem-trails. All chem-trails are, is the act of purposely dispersing something into the atmosphere via airplane for a specific desire effect. It could be used for cloud seeding, or it could be used to disperse nano-particles. All of which have been proved. And a Harvard study also cites that fluoride can significantly decrease the IQ of young children, because their brains are in rapid development. You can also research that the fluoride they put in drinking water is not medical grade fluoride they use in toothpaste and mouthwash. Instead they use industrial grade waste fluoride which is a byproduct from the manufacturing of aluminum. You can also research that large chemical companies back in the 30’s were looking for a use for all the fluoride waste they had. Because to dispose of it properly cost lots of money. So they funded scientist to find a use for fluoride. They found that it could keep teeth brighter. So the chemical companies paid the Scientist to falsify their studies to support the use of fluoride in drinking water. They did this without waiting 30 years to test long term health effects. And if we are using fluoride for our teeth, then what reason do we need to ingest it through our drinking water? Any beneficial effects on teeth, come from topical application. Not from systemic ingestion. Fluoride also calcifies the Pineal gland in your brain, if ingested long term. People don’t understand, that just about every corrupt action made in this world, happened from the motivation of money, and that fluoridating water, is just a profit making scam. And a dangerous one at that. Because fluoride has also shown to cause calcium to leech from your bones, causing brittleness. Then that leeched calcium travels through blood, crosses the blood brain barrier, and concentrates around the Pineal gland.

          • Lady Willpower

            Fantastic information! Very helpful.
            Thanks!

          • Schneibster

            Whoa.

            So jet airplanes are totally illegal?

            No wonder they’re investigating everyone’s phone calls who goes on one.

            /sarcasm

          • Schneibster

            And the Trilateral Commission.

            And Bohemian Grove where they engage in snuff child prostitution.

          • Lady Willpower

            Don’t go to sleep on the Illuminati. That shit’s real, man.

          • nathkatun7

            I am so sick of “holier than thou’ people like you, with all your superiority attitude. I guess you think that It’s only your click, led by greenwald, that knows all the truth and all of us are are a bunch of brainwashed idiots because we dare to challenge Greenwald’s hype and propaganda.

          • Schneibster

            Greenwald’s in it for the money.

          • nathkatun7

            I agree! And this poor guy Snowden is going to pay for GG’s greed.

          • Schneibster

            I dunno, Snowjob looks pretty shady to me.

        • Schneibster

          I use “Troofer.” It gets their mentality across better.

    • Shingo

      “Here’s a disturbing fact; the attackers on 9/11 only killed around 3,000 Americans. ”

      A more disturbing fact is that the attackers could have been easily stopped with the existing systems in place and that all this NSA surveillance couldn’t even stop the Boston attacks.

  • ASkepticalLiberal

    “So what began two weeks ago as a story about the NSA following your every keystroke as you type it has been shaved down to accidental data collection and no targeting of citizens without a warrant.”

    I challenge you to quote a single passage in any of the Guardian or WP’s coverage that made the claim that “the NSA [is] following your every keystroke. Your attempts to misrepresent the reporting on this story are beyond shameless.

    • adept2u

      How about the Snowden interview where he testified to such ability that was attached to the Guardian story without contradiction.

      • ASkepticalLiberal

        What Snowden said is that he, as a system administrator, had the ability to monitor keystrokes. He made no claim that this was legal or routine. Please provide a quote showing that he did.

        • adept2u

          If monitoring that is so scary to you is illegal and not routine, what’s the hubbub bub?

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            It’s fairly clear that it is illegal. It is far from clear that it’s not routine or that the NSA has made any attempt to prevent illegal “inadvertent” searches. The FISC clearly has not– they make no attempt to ensure compliance.

          • adept2u

            I’m sorry, did you say Snowden states it is not illegal, but you say it is because you know there are no safeguards to inadvertent searches? Where you aware this had been done? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?hp&_r=2&pagewanted=all& Do you have any authority to cite outside of your feelings that the surveillance program is illegal?

            Your statement nothing had been done to secure compliance doesn’t comport with the facts.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            Explain to me what actual oversight the FISC or anyone else does to make sure that the NSA isn’t simply grabbing whatever they want and labeling the domestic intercepts as “inadvertent.”

            I’ll be back in a few hours to see your response. I have some work to do.

          • adept2u

            I am not the emotional progressive whisperer. I don’t have the ability to cure your paranoid hypotheticals when I know the FBI will park a van in front of your home on the word of a crack dealer at 2:00 am with a warrant from a judge that hasn’t refused one since the Nixon administration.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            My grandfather was a lawyer who worked with MLK. The FBI DID park a truck across the street for over five years to monitor and intimidate him. Little shits like you are perfectly content to completely ignore our long history of surveillance abuses by smearing anyone who is concerned as a conspiracy theorist. It is despicable.

          • adept2u

            My uncle was killed by white men for the crime of telling them no. We never recovered the body. I can’t walk down the streets in NYC with my teenaged cousins without the NYPD targetting me. Tell your Grandpa thanks must be nice his grandson lives in a world where all he fought for could be ended on Monday with a SCOTUS decision but he’s worried about someone seeing his YouPorn file.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            If you have had run ins with the NYPD’s stop and frisk program, then you know how this works. Cops search whoever they want. They cite bullshit claims of “furtive movements” to pretend that what they are doing is legal. NSA does the same thing. They snoop on Americans and just claim it was inadvertent.

            The only difference: citizens were able to challenge the NYPD’S in a real court that actually interrogated the factual basis of the NYPD’S claims.

          • adept2u

            You could sue too show some damage. Oh that’s right you can’t cause nothing has happened to you but you can call me a shit and talk about your Grandfather like MLK is a talisman to make Blacks shut up.

            Hold on If? I had to grow grey hair before the police didn’t mess with me on a quarterly basis if? Man it must be nice.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            I had no clue that you were black. I didn’t really think that your race was relevant.

            Edit: In any case, look at the damages that NYPD victims cite– it’s largely based on subjective intrusion.

          • adept2u

            Only a white man could think race was irrelevant to the application of American rights. I had to assume you knew what I looked like cause I have an icon with my picture in it,or perhaps that I discussed being a target with my cousins in NYC and many other American locales.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            Christ, I can’t resist the temptation to waste more time here. If we’re talking about race, then how about we ask whether Muslims– who are the people that this surveillance is actually primarily targeted at– think it’s such a non-issue.

          • adept2u

            We’ll ask my cousin Beverly X.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            And I’ll ask my neighbor Abdul. Oh, wait. I did: he is really, really pissed and disturbed.

          • adept2u

            He should sue. Interesting that your neighbors name is supposed to tell me his religion one might think you’re pulling things out of your ass or don’t know you can’t spot a Muslim by name or race, but I suspect because you’re embarrassed you’re trying to start some kind of oppression Olympics by proxy. You bore me now, I’ll let you have whatever last words you want.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            You are really an idiot, aren’t you.

            1) He can’t sue without standing. He can’t get standing unless he can prove that he was spied on. We’re one step closer to that proof thanks to Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Snowden.
            2) I happen to know that my neighbor Abdul is a Muslim. It’s not like he keeps it a secret.

          • nathkatun7

            “He can’t sue without standing. He can’t get standing unless he can prove that he was spied on.”

            So how do you know he was spied on? Why must you be outraged without specific and concrete proof? If it turns out he was not spied on shouldn’t you pay some price for spreading fear based on lies?

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            No, I should not “have to pay some price,” asshole. The problem with secret spying is that you never know when someone’s listening.

            Ever hear of a panopticon? Bentham? Foucault? Probably not if you’re dumb enough to trust this Censa asshole.

          • nathkatun7

            Go ahead and throw out names of philosophers. From the way you reason here, I doubt you ever read them. And if you did read them you never comprehended any thing they wrote.

            As far as I am concerned, you come across as one of those “True Believers.” You are “absolutely certain about things you do not know.” And another thing: calling me “asshole” and “dumb” is not exactly a sign of maturity or sophisticated reasoning.

          • nathkatun7

            So, was Abdul personally targeted for surveillance? Or is he scared because you and Glenn Greenwald are scaring him with hyped and false information?

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            Jesus Christ. I didn’t say that race is irrelevant. I merely failed to zoom in on your blurry little picture to figure out if it revealed your race. Once you started talking about your family history, I understood that you were black.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            “I had no clue that you were black.”

            But you are not, are you? Hence, using MLK as weapon of sorts.

          • nathkatun7

            Yep, MLK is now the weapon they brandish whenever they are attacking President Obama. Somehow they think we are fools and we don’t know the game being played.

            Look, it’s true that the FBI targeted Dr. King, bugging his house, hotel rooms and office. Not only Dr. King but other Black leaders of the 60s. The FBI’s goal was to disrupt the Civil Rights movement by tarnishing the leaders. In that situation you can point to real victims. I have yet to read or see or hear about one innocent American, or group of Americans, specifically targeted by NSA for surveillance. I’ve also not seen any credible explanation about why NSA would spy on millions and millions of innocent Americans. What does NSA hope to accomplish? What is NSA’s motive?

          • nathkatun7

            “…look at the damages that NYPD victims cite– it’s largely based on subjective intrusion.”

            Sorry, there is nothing “subjective” about being stopped and frisked just because you have a dark skin. That s**t is real. What is subjective, and may be even delusional, is to go around thinking the government is spying on you without any shred of concrete proof.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            You don’t understand the legal distinction between subjective and objective violations: police break your arm= objective; police scare the shit out of you and make you feel subhuman= subjective. Both are very bad.

            For the record, I adamantly oppose both NSA and NYPD policies here.

          • nathkatun7

            Sorry, what I understand is the difference between reality and conjecture. Police stops my nephew and Frisk him because he is black=reality. The Victim is who has been stopped and frisked is real. Conversely, Greenwald and ASkepticalLiberal assert that the NSA may be listening to the telephone calls of all Americans with no concrete proof=conjecture/speculation. Neither Greenwald nor ASkepticalLiberal liberal know of any real victim of NSA violation. Yet they are more outraged about NSA than they are about NYPD stop and frisk where there are real and easily identified victims. But guess what Greenwald and ASkepticalLiberal consider themselves the “holier than thou” guardians of civil liberties though they could not cite any concrete evidence to show that their liberties have been violated.

            If you dare to challenge them, then you must be an idiot. Why? Well they know more about law and the Constitution than you do. But did they bother to ask you about your credentials? Of course not. No one knows law as well as Glenn Greenwald and his cult followers. Exhibit#1: They despise those ignorant and unethical judges on the FISA Court. But weren’t the judges appointed to the Court because of their expertise and judicial integrity? Not if Glenn Greenwald doesn’t approve their rulings. And if the “Dear Leader”Greenwald doesn’t approve of the judges on the FISA court you can be absolutely sure that his cult followers, like ASkepticalLiberal, won’t approve or have confidence in them either.

          • nathkatun7

            “For the record, I adamantly oppose both NSA and NYPD policies here”

            ASkepiticalLIberal, can you cite some links that show that you have been as passionate in opposing the NYPD “Stop and Frisk” policy as you are in the Greenwald hyped NSA policy? I at least have not seen you on the sites that have been actively opposing the NYPD “Stop and Frisk policies,” which actually involve real identifiable victims and not just abstract speculations.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            I’ll say one thing about my grandfather: he was far too smart to waste time on petulant assholes like you and Mr. Cesca.

            This is a waste of time. I will say good day

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            *waves* don’t let the door hit ya!

          • nathkatun7

            “The only difference: citizens were able to challenge the NYPD’S in a real court that actually interrogated the factual basis of the NYPD’S claims.”

            You ignored, perhaps conveniently, a more glaring difference. In the case of NYPD’s “stop and and frisk” you have actual victims. In the case of NSA it’s all about conjecture and speculation about what may “inadvertently” happen although it’s very clear that there laws and rules in place to prevent any invasion of privacy unless there is probable cause that require a warrant.

            Your blanket assertion: “They snoop on Americans and just claim it was inadvertent…” is not supported by any concrete evidence. I have yet to see one single innocent American who has come forward to allege that NSA snooped on them without a court warrant.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            THIS^^^^^^

          • nathkatun7

            If all else fails bring in MLK! I am just so sick and tired of people exploiting the memory of Dr. King just because we have a black President. Apparently you are totally ignorant of the laws passed to curtail the FBI practices that prevailed during MLK’s time.

          • nathkatun7

            It’s you who should cite specific evidence to prove that the NSA is ‘simply grabbing whatever they want and labeling domestic intercepts as “inadvertent.”‘ Other wise, what you asking adept2u to do is to prove a negative.

    • Schneibster

      “Direct access.”

      Don’t lie. You’ll get caught. The ‘Net is too big. And you’re not smart enough.

  • i_a_c

    Two points:

    1. The latest revelations are totally in line with Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments. Again, that doesn’t make it good, necessarily. It means that Congress granted a power, and if it turns like we don’t like it, then the law ought to be amended or repealed. If you read the link, you will see that (1) FISC is approing guidelines for analysts to target foreign persons once per year, (2) that such targeting of foreign persons does not require an individual court order, and (3) that the data collection is done in accordance with the minimization procedures when American data is inadvertently collected.

    2. I honestly don’t give a shit if my phone calls are inadvertently collected while they’re looking for foreign terrorists. First of all, the vast majority of these NSA people are professionals with a job to do and aren’t going to waste their time with irrelevant BS. Second, in the zeal to put someone, anyone, behind bars for a crime, prosecutors and police departments throw all kinds of shit against the wall. Interviews, search warrants, wiretaps, etc. are all utilized against innocent people, and they’re actually being targeted. So no, I’m not terribly outraged that the NSA might pick up on stuff irrelevant to what they’re investigating.

    • ASkepticalLiberal

      1. “The latest revelations are totally in line with Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments.”

      Mind explaining why it was classified as top secret?

      2. “It means that Congress granted a power, and if it turns like we don’t like it, then the law ought to be amended or repealed.”

      There’s usually a third way: the constitutionality of a law can be challenged in court. That hasn’t happened here, because the Obama administration has worked very hard to block all such efforts by using the state secrets privilege and challenging plaintiff’s standings.

      I do not believe that the Supreme Court would consider this to comply with the Fourth Amendment. Imagine that the police used this sort of logic: “We’re not going to present evidence to secure warrants. We’ll just submit an affidavit saying that our procedures prevent abuse. Any illegal searches are just a mistake! Honest!”

      3. “I honestly don’t give a shit if my phone calls are inadvertently collected while they’re looking for foreign terrorists.”

      That’s nice. I do. I also care if the President (who I voted for) is telling the truth when he says that nobody is listening to our phone calls.

      If Greenwald ends up printing documents that show that thousands of Americans have had their emails read and their calls monitored “inadvertently,” it will be absolutely hilarious to see you guys try to spin it.

      • jaywillie

        Where are those documents? Isn’t that what Greenwald, Snowden, and every raving loony on the left and right as been screaming happened? If this is such an egregious violation of our civil liberties as Americans, why are they holding back? Why are they playing this “drip-drip-drip” game with such volatile information that Americans deserve to know?

        • ASkepticalLiberal

          That’s a legitimate complaint. Clearly they are trying to maximize exposure and also to make people like Cesca look increasingly stupid. I think an argument can be made that this is poor journalism.

          However, Bob Cesca, who has no problem blatantly misrepresenting others’ claims, is not the person to do it.

          • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

            It might be legitimate, but it’s not very cogent. Besides all the fact checking and legal work Guardian staff need to do, a slow drip of news will help, not hurt change. It will be extremely hard to force the security state to be more open. It will take far more than Wyden and Udall press releases to accomplish it. Only long term steady pressure has any hope of succeeding. The best strategy is to allow the security state to discredit itself through a cycle of denial and then exposure of the lies.

          • nathkatun7

            So what will you if it turns out that it’s Greenwald who is manipulating, hyping and lying? As for the security state, I wish there were a government in the world that did not keep secrets when it comes to the security of the country.

          • nathkatun7

            You know who looks stupid? The people who are setting their hair on fire based on manipulated hyped reports that are routinely debunked by those who know the NSA operation.

          • Shingo

            “The people who are setting their hair on fire based on manipulated hyped reports that are routinely debunked by those who know the NSA operation.”

            Those who know know the NSA operation, namely General Alexander, have been exposed as liars.

      • i_a_c

        When Congress creates a law allowing the government to do something, and it turns out they’re doing that something, it doesn’t strike me as outrageous. The law itself might be outrageous. Indeed, I think that the “business records” provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows the phone records collection and Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments which allow surveillance of non-US persons without a court order go too far. If I had my way, I’d prefer a “probable cause” standard than a “reasonable belief” standard, but that’s not where we are thanks to laws passed by Congress.

        Standing is a real feature of court proceedings, not some stonewalling tactic. You can’t file a lawsuit for just anything, you have to be damaged somehow. I think it’s probably a legitimate complaint that nobody will ever know if they are damaged by secret activity. So you have to use the other recourse–changing the law through Congress. Not everything can be adjudicated in a court. War powers are one example. Courts have no business whatsoever involving themselves in the war power that Congress grants to the President. The only recourse is for Congress to repeal the war power.

        My preference is to have a higher standard than what’s going on.now. The PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments should be scaled back or repealed. And I do to an extent appreciate those folks who care passionately that the gov’t isn’t snooping where it shouldn’t. But for me personally, when similar abuses and much worse occur every day in the course of law enforcement and prosecution, when people walking or driving around can get stopped or jailed because of the way they look or because they have a weird last name, it never occurred to me that the liberty some passionately defend was ever anything but a mirage. So in that sense, no, I’m not outraged that the government was doing what it said it would do, or that sometimes irrelevant stuff from innocent people gets caught in the web, because what the NSA could potentially do doesn’t remotely compare to what’s actually happening right now or what has happened in the past. Nor am I particularly outraged that people got what they asked for when they elected Bush a second time to use any means necessary to “keep us safe” from terrorism. (And just as a reminder, Bush did all of this stuff without any kind of FISA authorization or Congressional framework whatsoever.) If they decide that they don’t like it after all, they can pressure Congress into rolling it back.

        • Shingo

          “When Congress creates a law allowing the government to do something, and it turns out they’re doing that something, it doesn’t strike me as outrageous. ”

          That depends on what the law is and whether the law violates the Constitution. The point that Greenwald has uncovered, is that the FBI and NSA have chosen to go beyond even the broad authority that Section 215 confers, so no, they are not doing that the law was intended.

          Everything that Hitler did was legal under Germany’s laws at the time. Are you suggesting that nothing Hitler did was outrageous

          • i_a_c

            Next sentence, pal: “The law itself might be outrageous.” Point being: I’ve always opposed the PATRIOT Act. I’m not surprised in the least that the government decided to use it.

            And Hitler has been invoked. Congratulations on that.

          • Shingo

            >> I’ve always opposed the PATRIOT Act. I’m not surprised in the least that the government decided to use it.

            The pint being that the FBI and NSA are abusing the law as opposed to using it.

            >> And Hitler has been invoked.

            Oh I’m sorry. I’ll just sit quietly while the Obamabots dismiss every criticism against Obama as a Republican conspiracy, even when the Republicans are on the same side in this issue.

      • nathkatun7

        Greenwald should have produced those documents right away. Until I see concrete proof that innocent Americans were harmed I refuse to set my hair on fire and start accusing government officials, and especially the President, of wrong doing. I especially refuse to join the crusade for spreading fear based on hype, exaggerations and outright falsehoods.

      • chrisj

        “If Greenwald ends up printing documents that show that thousands of
        Americans have had their emails read and their calls monitored
        “inadvertently,” it will be absolutely hilarious to see you guys try to
        spin it.”

        You mean if Greenwald actually had a story beyond being an accomplice to Mr. Snowden and revealing the weakness in NSA hiring procedures?

    • Shingo

      “The latest revelations are totally in line with Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments. ”

      No they are not. Congress did not contemplate prospective surveillance when it enacted Section 215. During the debate on the PATRIOT Act, no member of Congress and no intelligence official seeking the Section 215 authority cited an example of prospective surveillance that Section 215 would authorize.

      “I honestly don’t give a shit if my phone calls are inadvertently collected while they’re looking for foreign terrorists.”

      The fact is that the foreign terrorists are never going to be swept up by this dragnet because they know they are being watched. That means that the NSA, which has to justify the insaner money and resources that this program is consuming, will indeed be looking for ways to entrap those who are not.

      Just look at the FBI stings, all based on entrapment where FBI informants trick unsuspecting half wits into saying “jihad” into an open mike.

      “First of all, the vast majority of these NSA people are professionals with a job to do and aren’t going to waste their time with irrelevant BS.”

      Wrong assumption. The NSA professionals are there to do as they are told in order to get paid. If they are ordered to waste time, that is what they will do.

      • i_a_c

        Read Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments. I’m specifically referring to the activity directed at non-US persons. It says without going into detail exactly what they’re doing, listed as (1), (2), and (3) above.

        And while we’re at it, Sec. 215 of the PATRIOT Act literally says that the FBI director can “make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” I mean, that could mean pretty much anything, as PATRIOT Act opponents have said since the beginning. Since Congress has been briefed for quite some time on the program, my assumption is that they consent and agree, for better or for worse.

        I’m not so cynical to think that the NSA professionals are being paid to indulge a voyeurism fetish.

        • Shingo

          I have read Sec. 702.

          Under 702, the program did away with individual warrants for each foreign suspect whose communications would be collected in the United States. In its place, the FISA court, which oversees domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and whose proceedings are secret, would certify the government’s procedures to target people overseas and ensure citizens’ privacy.

          >> I mean, that could mean pretty much anything, as PATRIOT Act opponents have said since the beginning. Since Congress has been briefed for quite some time on the program, my assumption is that they consent and agree, for better or for worse.

          Hello!! That’s the point. The drag net is so wide that it can mean anything and anyone they like, with the flimsiest of justifications. And in the events they don’t have a justification, they resort to the ooops I did it again “inadvertent” clause and keep doing it anyway.

          >> I’m not so cynical to think that the NSA professionals are being paid to indulge a voyeurism fetish.

          Of couse not. It’s not as if highly paid government contractors with enormous power and access have ever abused it right?

  • LewisKlim2

    Mr. Cesca muddies still further less than transparent waters. Mr. Snoden, or his motives, can hardly be partially understood at this point, still less any NSA program that one cares to name. (Yes, there have been several programs over the past decade and half. However, many of these programs have been prohibitively expensive,if less than widely publicized failures (the “expansive” nature of such programs has always been a non-starter for those who believe the world to be unfree of dangers).
    Contrary to Mr. Cesca’s forgiving “system-isn’t-perfect” blather; (After 9/11, the
    Commission charged wih remedying its failures concluded: the uppermost reaches of the bureaucracy did not listen to the lower echelons, and established, unsurprisingly, more bureacracy…) U.S. taxpayers, himself included, have every right to know how their annual tithe to our republic’s well-being is spent. Not simply
    those whose vision is blinkered by election or business cycles.

    • adept2u

      U.S. taxpayers, himself included, have every right to know how their annual tithe to our republic’s well-being is spent.

      I agree. I’ve been wanting to know what Reagan did with that Star Wars money since he spent it.

  • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson
  • ChrisAndersen

    I have been critical of Greenwald and Snowden and those who have taken what they said as de facto evidence that we live in a police state, but that doesn’t mean I think that everything that has come out of this story is a waste of time. If there is one aspect of our national security state that bothers me it is the excessive secrecy. I can understand the need for secrecy around individual investigations and the technical details of surveillance programs, but I just cannot understand why it is necessary that the decision making procedures behind how these programs are used are also considered top secret. Therefore, I am glad that these two particular documents have finally been released. They should have been public knowledge a long time ago and, if they had been, maybe some of the rampant paranoia could have been minimized (heh).

    • gn

      I disagree. I see little to nothing of value in incidents like this one, or the equivalent cherrypicking of IRS testimony by Issa in the IRS “scandal.” The paranoia is created by bad faith reporting and a compliant national media which does not insist on better factual standards. There’s no silver lining or positive outcome to be had with massively misinforming the public. I have an issue when the GOP does it, and I have the same issue when people on my “side” do it as well. There can be no genuine transparency without truth. Seating President Obama has been an advancement in transparency, as any fair, good faith comparison of this admin with the previous one will confirm. Yellow journalism? Not so much.

      • ChrisAndersen

        The excessive secrecy fertilizes the soil in which paranoia, hysteria and hucksters thrive. Of course we should have more responsible media, but when the secrecy encourages wild speculation it should not surprise us when wild speculation becomes the standard.

      • Shingo

        ” I see little to nothing of value in incidents like this one, or the equivalent cherrypicking of IRS testimony by Issa in the IRS “scandal.” ”

        You are clearly far more concerned with keeping your chosen man in the White House than oversight and the rule of law.

    • Shingo

      “If there is one aspect of our national security state that bothers me it is the excessive secrecy.”

      And what’s particularly disgusting is that Obama now says we should have a debate about it, years after the system has been put in place. The only reason he is suddenly open to the idea of a debate, is because it’s been exposed.

  • Steven Skelton

    It’s a shame that this story was broken by Greenwald and occured under a Democratic President.

    If it had broken back when Bush was president, Bob would have been a great ally in protecting our 4th amendment rights.

    • adept2u

      It did break under Bush we had a whole FISA discussion in 2008 remember the Protect America Act? It was passed Pelosi’s house, guess who made it tougher in compromise? Oh my the Democratic President.

      • Steven Skelton

        The leak regarding Verizon and Prism did not break in 2008.

        • adept2u

          http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm no the fact the NSA was data mining did in 2006. Prism is nothing but a mailbox that carriers and others drop court ordered information into it isn’t skynet.

          • Cobbesca

            If you’d been paying attention, and I know you have since I just read some of your tweets between Kurt Eichenwald and Glenn Greenwald, you’d know that Prism is a computer system (whatever the fuck that means), and not “nothing but a mailbox” or an ftp or a dropbox. Plus, the article you provide is about CALLS, “to create a database of every call ever made,” not ALL internet activity. This is the new scandal and not the “nothing new to see here” claim you guys love to throw around. Care to reword your claim?

          • i_a_c

            This is dead wrong. There is no program to collect all Internet activity.

          • Cobbesca

            Clearly the slide that is titled “Providers and Data” – http://gigaom.com/2013/06/07/through-a-prism-darkly-tracking-the-ongoing-nsa-surveillance-story/ – only includes everything I do online with the exception of some google searches and general browsing, which then is covered for collection under: “Notifications of target activity – logins, etc. AND Special requests”. And since most sites I visit use some sort of login, that pretty much covers all my internet activity. So yeah ALL internet activity. Btw, no one in government has refuted any of these slides, officials, including PBHO, have stated that there is transparency and oversight. Which is the reason for the scandal since we have no idea what transparency or oversight but we shall see. If history is any prologue you can rest assured that this will and probably has been used for reasons other than those cited. But you should totally keep believing Cesca’s smear campaign, since it’s really getting to the real issue at hand, you know, the messenger. He should be ashamed.

          • i_a_c

            No, it’s already been revealed that the PRISM stuff is in response to specific requests compelled under FISC orders, or under Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments. That’s a far cry from what was originally reported, which was that the government has the ability to sift through servers at their whim.

          • adept2u

            No I don’t care to at all the mailbox isn’t stupid but it is just a mailbox a repository of information not skynet. ALL internet activity is not being collected in a database. This is like calling the police and fire department to report a bad dream you had 5 years ago people who live in real life have better things to worry about.

            Oh and I’m blocked by Glenn Greenwald because I’m a vocal opponent of men who use rape imagery to silence Black women so I don’t know or care what he says on twitter.

        • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

          PRISM was created under Section 702 of the FAA… when Bush was president. Obama voted for it.

        • nathkatun7

          You need to go back and read about this in U.S.A today 2006. Sorry but Verizon was one the phone companies identified in the story.

      • gn

        It blows my mind. It’s just complete historical revision.

    • Cobbesca

      Truth.

    • nathkatun7

      You must have been sleeping when the NSA story broke under Bush. At the time, Bush was using warrantless snooping. To correct that Congress brought in the FISA Court. The 4th Amendment does not preclude the use of warrants, based on probable cause, to intrude on people’s privacy. Which is precisely what the NSA has been doing since 2007. Again, until you, or Mr. Greenwald, produces concrete evidence that the privacy of innocent individuals was infringed upon, the claim about the “4th Amendment rights” has no merit and is primarily invoked to inflame ignorant people.

  • adept2u

    Sounds like a blogger crafted a narrative he knew would be attractive to a demographic and is selling it. Bradley Manning must feel like Liberace’s first boyfriend when Scott showed up. I’m trying to remember did federal judges sign off on the MLK wire taps, or exercise oversight on COINTELPRO? I want to make sure I’m up to date on this new Truthiness future we got going on here.

    • ASkepticalLiberal

      “Sounds like a blogger crafted a narrative he knew would be attractive to a demographic and is selling it.”

      Yes, that blogger’s name is Bob Cesca. I guess he was counting on his readers to be too lazy to actually read Greenwald’s article or too stupid to comprehend the information it contains. I suppose he was correct in this.

      • adept2u

        Glenn Greenwald is a grifter who uses rape imagery to silence Black women and I was referring to him. He has fed the body politics of this nation a Benghazi story of his own shade and creation and is confident and has reason to be that the original lies he reports will not catch the new ones he tells. Paint yourself blue and scream like William Wallace all you want you have few folks behind you.

        • ASkepticalLiberal

          Yes or no: did you read Greenwald’s article? If yes, does Cesca’s piece accurately and fully summarize his conclusions, or did he cherry pick a few lines from the beginning to make it appear as if Greenwald was walking his story back?

          I honestly couldn’t care less about your personal opinion of Greenwald.

          • adept2u

            You must be under the impression that I’m here to change your impression. I’m sorry I gave it to you. I have no desire to pull you out of your Alex Jones hole enjoy yourself. I have no desire or am I required to answer simple accusations like did you read the article however since I’m having fun here you go.

            The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

            Bull the NSA secures access through court monitored subpoenas. The total number of accesses including local authorities was minuscule. Not the impression the Glenn gave, but what’s honesty in pursuit of an agenda huh?

            The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

            Bull, Prism collects data consisting of telephone numbers locations and durations of calls.

            The story as presented is BS

            His new story is nothing but they are following the law, the idea that if they hear something else they will follow it is enshrined across court cases since forever. No sale next.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            You can fix ignorance, but not willful ignorance.

          • adept2u

            I’m not trying to fix you I’ve already told you you were free to enjoy your conspiracy theory.

          • Shingo

            >> I’m not trying to fix you I’ve already told you you were free to enjoy your conspiracy theory.

            In which case, while you are free to spout government propaganda, he should also be free to debunk it.

          • nathkatun7

            Please look in the mirror! What you said applies to you perfectly.

          • Shingo

            >> His new story is nothing but they are following the law

            How would you know that? The way they are interpreting the law is classified. Neither the judicial nor legislative branches have been able to compel the executive branch to explain themselves to the American people.

            Senator Ron Wyden, was reduced two years ago to saying, presciently but impotently:

            “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they are going to be stunned, and they are going to be angry … many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified. It’s almost as if there were two Patriot Acts, and many members of Congress have not read the one that matters.”

          • ConfusedCarrier

            For the folks playing at home, the AT&T equipment rooms being referenced were called Project Carnivore, and it is well documented. Exposed by a technician in the days before whistleblowers became celebrities, his name is now eluding me and I will leave it to you all to look it up, because in doing so, you will also learn the rest of that story,

          • martaM

            Good liars, like the kind we are dealing with, deny the
            truth until new evidence comes up (and beyond). Chances are, more of
            the truth will be seen – real soon. “[ A]s we learn
            more, the picture becomes increasingly alarming. Last week
            we discovered that
            the NSA shares information with a division of the Drug Enforcement
            Administration called the Special Operations Division (SOD). The
            DEA uses the information in
            drug investigations. But it also gives NSA data out to other
            agencies – in
            particular, the Internal Revenue Service, which, as you might
            imagine, is always looking for information on tax cheats.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

            Oh, and a little “trivia” I happened to come
            across yesterday:

            “Trivia: Shia LaBeouf stated that during
            filming [Eagle Eye] an FBI Agent told him and the cast that 1 in
            every 5 phone calls someone makes is recorded. To prove this, the
            agent had him listen to a phone call he made 2 years prior to
            filming. (Source: The Internet Movie
            Database)”

            http://www.media-assault.com/moviereviews/eagleeyereview.shtml

        • Shingo

          >> Glenn Greenwald is a grifter who uses rape imagery to silence Black women and I was referring to him.

          What evidence do you have for that?

          >> Paint yourself blue and scream like William Wallace all you want you have few folks behind you.

          Enjoy the remainder of your existence as a boiling frog.

          • jezebel

            LOL @ the #FauxProgressive STILL pretending his precious Glenn Greenwald is “innocent” of this horrible Liberal smear campaign. :)

            I’ve seen the “proof” of Greenwald’s rape imagery. You’d think devoted PSYCHOphants like you would at least have heard of it. Funny, huh?

            *sunshine smile*

          • Shingo

            >> I’ve seen the “proof” of Greenwald’s rape

            So share it with us, or it didn’t happen.

            >> You’d think devoted PSYCHOphants like you would at least have heard of it.

            No, seeing as I don;t have time to listen to lies. That is clearly your field of expertise.

          • jezebel

            LMAO @ THE LIBERTARIAN LUNATIC saying: “Show us the proof or it didn’t happen” <– Hahaha! :)

            Bob Cesca showed you the PROOF OF GREENWALD's GOP LUNATIC LIBERTARIAN GOP LIES yet you've been cry-whining it's a "Liberal smear campaign" for HOW MANY days now, in HOW MANY posts under HOW MANY profiles?

            *ROFL – Wipes tears*

            Don't ask for truth you're too much of an apologist asshat to handle :)

          • Shingo

            Bob Cesca is a partisan who constructs his argument based on misleading argument and outright falsities.

            Cesca claims that:

            1. Greenwald was misleading in his claim that the NSA directly accesses the servers of the internet giants

            2. That the Washington Post reported the same claim but subsequently walked back that
            statement, and that this proves Greenwald is being dishonest by not doing the
            same

            In this interview with Chris Hayes, at approx 11:40, Chris Hayes asked Greenwald about this dispute. Greenwald explains that:

            1. The Gaurdin has published 4 stories. The
            only one that has been questioned was the same one the Washington Post reported on, which is he PRISM story.

            2. The Guardian covered the story differently than the WAPO, which is why the WAPO had to walk back their claims.

            3. The NSA documents Snowden produced made those claims about directly collecting information from the servers of the internet giants mentioned. That is the language the
            documents used.

            4. Unlike the Washington Post report, the Guardian contacted the internet companies before publishing to ask them and they denied it. The Guardian these denials in their report.

            5. The Guardian reported that there is a discrepancy between what the NSA documents claim and what the tech companies claim.

            6. What is beyond dispute is that there are ongoing negotiations to allow backdoor
            access and share data.

            It should be noted that the internet companies are bound by secrecy laws, so their denials are not proof of anything.’

            Cesca of course knows this, but in his desperation to discredit Greenwald and save his beloved king (Obama), he deliberately leaves this key information out.

            In this clip, you can also see Clapper caught lying through his teeth, explaining that he responded to questions in his testimony before the Senate in the “least untruthful manner” possible. Of course, there is also Peter King,
            lying (like he always does)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=s5BeBXa-uHk

          • jezebel

            » » “Bob Cesca is a partisan who constructs his argument based on misleading argument and outright falsities.”

            LMAO! So “quoting” Glenn Greenwald’s

          • Shingo

            >> So “quoting” Glenn Greenwald’s misleading bullshit & GOP Lies makes “BOB” the partisan.

            He’s a partisan because all he’s concerned about is protecting his beloved Obama. Not only a partisan, but a hypocrite. Cesca,

            Here’s an example of him attacking Bush or the same offenses Obama is committing and which he is now defnding.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/10-examples-of-bush-and-t_b_3288007.html

            Like you and the other Obama cultists, he only srand into action when people started comparing Obama to Cheney, who as I pointed out, is on Obama’s side.

            >> Fyi, the Guardian DID post a retraction to GG’s BS..

            No they did not. The Guardian doesn’t have a page 14 (it’s an on line newspaper) so stop the lies.

            >> You’re a psychotic, low, life, liar & your trash-talking ceased to be amusing long ago.

            And you mindless cultists are masters of projection.

      • nathkatun7

        Me thinks you are projecting much, sir/madam!

    • gocart mozart

      No they did not. That is why the FISA court was established in the late 70’s

    • Barry Schwartz

      Never attribute to greed what can be explained by paranoia.

    • nathkatun7

      “I’m trying to remember did federal judges sign off on the MLK wire taps, or exercise oversight on COINTELPRO?”

      No! The federal courts didn’t sign off on MLK wire taps. After the exposure of COINTELPRO, Congress passed new laws curtailing the surveillance power of the FBI. FBI must obtain a warrant before commencing surveillance of individuals/groups in the United States. By the way that includes both citizens and residents. By the way NSA cannot conduct wiretapping or any other form of surveillance within the United States. Any information it gathers must be submitted to the FBI and the FBI in turn must secure a warrant, based on probable cause, to commence surveillance

      • Shingo

        >> After the exposure of COINTELPRO, Congress passed new laws curtailing the surveillance power of the FBI. FBI must obtain a warrant before commencing surveillance of individuals/groups in the United States.

        Those laws have since been amended under the FISA
        Amendments Act, which is based on a government interpretation which is secret.

        In 2001, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to carry out warrantless wiretapping and in 2008 Congress ratified and expanded that program, giving the NSA almost unchecked power to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and emails. In February 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the law.

        >> By the way NSA cannot conduct wiretapping or any other form of surveillance within the United States.

        Rubbish. They have and admit to doing so. In the lawsuit brought against the NSA by the ACLU, the ACLU sued Clapper over the intercepts of their emails. The NSA never denied doing do, but simply refused to hand over evidence on the grounds of national security.

        >> Any information it gathers must be submitted to the FBI and the FBI in turn must secure a warrant, based on probable cause, to commence surveillance

        False again. They can collect all the info they want without a warrant, Technically, they are simply not allowed to listen to it until they get such a warrant, but as Cesca admits, they do it “inadvertently”.

  • gn

    So basically the original story was shamelessly, brazenly dishonest. And rather than corrected or retracted, it’s being sleazily walked back while the national media just jumps to the next “scandal.” Amazing.

    • ASkepticalLiberal

      No, basically what happened is that the hack who wrote this article completely misrepresented Greenwald’s piece by ommitting any mention of the disturbing facts that he uncovered.

      Did you even read Greenwald’s article, or are you relying entirely on Cesca’s description of it?

      • Cobbesca

        Have you never been on this site? They believe whatever Cesca says they should believe.

        • ASkepticalLiberal

          No. I’ve never been here and I’d never heard of this foul hack Cesca until he launched this blatantly dishonest smear campaign. I’m beginning to wish I never had.

          • MrDHalen

            On behalf of the longtime readers of Mr. Cesca, we thank you for your page views.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            :)

          • nathkatun7

            I think you are hurt because Bob Cesca is exposing the shoddy, and propaganda writing of your “Dear Leader, Glenn Greenwald”; the all knowing and omnipotent leader, who must never be challenged. Well you know what? It’s increasingly obvious that your emperor Greenwald has no clothes. Either NSA has direct access to telephone calls, e-mails, etc., of every American, or it does not. Either NSA can listen in on everyone conversation or read everyone’s e-mail without a warrant issued by a court or it cannot.

            If NSA does not have direct access to people’s phones and cannot listen to any one’s conversation without a warrant issued by the Court? Where is the scandal that has generated all the outrage? Who has been harmed? And please don’t tell me that because Dr. King was bugged there fore NSA is doing exactly the same thing as J. Edgar Hoover did, despite all the laws passed since, and despite the congressional and court over-site.

            By the way it’s not only Bob Cesca who is exposing Glenn Greenwald’s hype and shoddy reporting. Other experts in what the NSA does, many of whom he has referenced and supplied links to, are doing the same.

          • Shingo

            “I think you are hurt because Bob Cesca is exposing the shoddy, and propaganda writing of your “Dear Leader, Glenn Greenwald””

            No, we’re just sick of a desperate Obama sycophant trying to distract his sycophantic readers from the obvious crimes and outrages of the Oabama administration.

            Cesca completely ignores the fact that the FBI and NSA have chosen to go beyond even the broad authority that Section 215 confers. Using Section 215 to obtain records of every phone call made to, from or within the U.S. is inconsistent with Section 215 in three ways: it is overbroad, prospective and without meaningful judicial control.

            The program collects data on virtually all calls in the U.S. The only way this can be squared with Section 215 is if the investigation for which these records are sought has been defined so broadly as to make the telephone calls of every person in the U.S. relevant to the investigation.

            In other words, the Obama administration has declared every US citizen a suspect.

            “Either NSA has direct access to telephone calls, e-mails, etc., of every American, or it does not.”

            Obviously it does, as we saw with the entire room the NSA had installed at the offices of AT&T.

            ” Where is the scandal that has generated all the outrage?”

            The scandal is that the BI and NSA have chosen to go beyond even the broad authority that Section 215 confers. Section 215 authorizes the FBI to obtain tangible things, but it is being used to obtain records that do not even exist when the order is issued. That is, the FBI uses Section 215 – a business records provision – for prospective surveillance.

            Congress did not contemplate prospective surveillance when it enacted Section 215. During the debate on the PATRIOT Act, no member of Congress and no intelligence official seeking the Section 215 authority cited an example of prospective surveillance that Section 215 would authorize.

          • nathkatun7

            This is all gibberish! Cite me a specific and concrete examples of innocent citizens who have been harmed! And if you are one of them at least write a narrative that shows how NSA has harmed you by violating your 4th Amendment rights! Until you can do that you need to STFU.

          • Shingo

            Don’t confuse gibberish with topics you clearly cannot understand.

            One does not need to be measurably harmed to have their rights violated. If some pervert posts naked images of a little girl on a pedophile web site, the little girl is not directly affected but it places her in danger and is clearly a violation of her rights.

          • jezebel

            ^ Greeneald PSYCHOphant is mad :)

          • Shingo

            I am no one’s sycophant. I am sick of government abuse.

            Seriously Jezebel, just consider the case of the ALCU vs Clapper. The ACLU sued Clapper over the FISA Amendments and charged that their emails were being swept up by the NSA.

            The judges voted against the lawsuit 5-4 because the ACLU were not able to prove their emails were being intercepted by the NSA and the reason they were not able to prove it is because the NSA refused to release them on grounds of national security.

            http://www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper

            AS for the Patriot Act, the public is not even entitled to know how the government has decided to interpret it because against, it’s classified.
            Orwell would never have saw this coming.

          • jezebel

            PSYCHOphant please.

            I don’t give a damn about irrelevant (FAILED) lawsuits. You’re trying to cloud the issue in order to detract from the FACT: GREENWALD LIED.

            Silly GOP TROLL, your tricks don’t work here.

          • Shingo

            >> I don’t give a damn about irrelevant (FAILED) lawsuits.

            Failed because the NSA refused to turn over evidence on the grounds of national security. Obviously, you are only too happy to live in a police state.

            >> You’re trying to cloud the issue in order to detract from the FACT: GREENWALD LIED.

            Rubbish. He didn’t lie at all. Greenwald spelled out what he law says. The government’s interpretation of the law is secret.

            Senator Ron Wyden said two years ago that:

            “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they are going to be stunned, and they are going to be angry … many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified. It’s almost as if there were two Patriot Acts, and many members of Congress have not read the one that matters.”

          • jezebel

            TROLLING 101: “Conflate the actual issue w/off-topic nonsense”…

            To make yourself appear knowledgeable & credible when you’re really just trying to take focus off the FACTS: GLENN GREENWALD LIED (To liable our Liberal/Dem leaders & disenfranchize Dems) BECAUSE HE’S A FAUX PROGRESSIVE LIBERTARIAN LUNATIC.

            And so are you to propagate GOP LIES.
            BYE, BYE TROLL :)

          • Shingo

            Again, you;re just carrying on like the right wing nutcases did who supported Bush.

            Greenwald did not lie, but Obama and Clapper most certainly have lied.

            And when are you going to get it thought your head that these are GOP lies when the GOP are on Obama’s side in this debate?

            Seems you are suffering a logic deficit.

          • Shingo

            >> Silly GOP TROLL, your tricks don’t work here.

            You are hillarious jezebel. Have you noticed that Dick Cheney has come out and called Snowden a traitor? How does it feel to be on the same side of the debate as Cheney?

          • jezebel

            You can cite as many “logical fallacies” as you like. Dick Cheney nor Satan himself (despite popular belief, they are two separate entities) vocally agreeing w/me changes the FACT: GLENN GREENWALD IS A HATEFUL, HYPERBOLIC, LIBERTARIAN LUNATIC LIAR.

            It’s your agreement w/him that ‘OUTS’ you for the silly GOP TROLL you are :)

          • Shingo

            How is it a logical fallacy that Dick Cheney has called Snowden a traitor? And what’s more, how can I possibly be a GOP troll when the repugs are on Obama’s side?

            You’re really not thinking clearly. That’s what happens when someone has given up thinking logically and simply wants to protect their idol against criticism.

          • jezebel

            Since you’re STILL playing stupid in order to confuse people I’ll explain AGAIN. :)

            LOGICAL FALLACY: “Because Cheney defends the NSA then ‘Republicans’ are on Obama’s side & thus I, along w/other Liberals are wrong”

            TRUTH: Libertarian Lunatics are Republicans. Thus, GG’s bullsh!t = GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA

            Therefore, YOU are full of crap to state Cons aren’t talking Teatard trash about Obama. They haven’t stopped trying to discredit him, any way they can since BEFORE he even became POTUS.

            Greenwald is one of the worse offenders.
            Along with you PSYCHOphant trolls of course

            *sunshine smile*

          • Shingo

            It’s you that is displaying stupidity here Jezebel,

            Fact. Bush introduced the NSA spy program 7 years ago, so it’s no surprise that right wing Republican nut jobs ike Cheney, Graham, and Peter are defending it.

            Fact: Neither the neocons, nor the Republicans are attacking Obama on this topic. They are not using this to discredit him.

            It’s the fact that the New York Times, not the Weekly Standard, that stated Obama has lost all credibility that’s got you Obama.

            Therefore, only someone drunk on the Obama Koolaid or who spends too much time in a parallel universe. could maintain that this has anything to do with neocon talking points.

            Therefore, it turns out it is you who is” full of crap”.

            >> They haven’t stopped trying to discredit him, any way they can since BEFORE he even became POTUS.

            The tragedy is that Obama did it to himself.

            What a tragic disappointment Obama turned out to be.

          • jezebel

            How much $ have you made trying to shill your GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA on this site? Does it matter that YOU FAILED to confuse the intelligent readers here w/your nonsensical, nonfactual, side-stepping, sh!t-stirring posts?

            LOL :)

            » » “Fact: Neither the neocons, nor the Republicans are attacking Obama on this topic. They are not using this to discredit him.”

            LIBERTARIAN LUNATICS = REPUBLICANS
            (How many time are you gonna dishonestly gloss over this? are you really so stupid & arrogant to think we don’t notice? LOL!)

            YOU MENTALLY RIGHTARDED GOP TROLLS ARE
            »»
            L

          • Shingo

            >> How much $ have you made trying to shill your GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA on this site?

            Nothing seeing as the GOP are on the same page as Obama.

            >> LIBERTARIAN LUNATICS = REPUBLICANS

            That’s a bt like saying COMMUNISTS./SOCIALISTS = DEMOCRATS.

            Did you even know that the name liberal was high jacked from the original libertarians?

            You really are a walking train wreck Jebzebel.

          • drsquid

            Mad GOP sycophant is mad.

          • Lady Willpower

            So… you like the word sycophant I guess? It does make you sound smart. That’s half the battle.

          • jezebel

            Smear Campaign?

            Libertarian lunatic Glenn Greenwald debunks his own hateful hyperbole in his own misleading articles. HE’S the “foul hack” – if you were capable of reading comprehension, you’d know this.

            Alas, you’re either too dumb to grasp what’s in black & white or simply a big fat liar like Greenwald.

            Or maybe you ARE Greenwald, haha! This wouldn’t be the first time he used sock accounts to defend his own “foul hack” faux progressive propaganda.

          • Shingo

            >> Libertarian lunatic Glenn Greenwald debunks his own hateful hyperbole in his own misleading articles.

            I know that’s Cesca has told you to believe but it’s based on a misleading and deceptive argument. Greenwald has not debunked himself at all.

            Really jezebel, you and your fellow travellers need to stop believing this is about Obama – it isn’t. This crap was in place before he took office. If Romney had won the last election you’d be hailing Greenwald as a hero for these revelations.

          • jezebel

            #FauxProgressive GOP TROLLS don’t get to tell me or any other Liberal what we think. You Cons can barely propagate your own dishonest, dumb-fu@k propaganda – Why compound the ridiculous things you say by pretending to know what “I” think? I’ve been telling you what I think – You’re GOP SHILL propagating nonfactual nonsense to disenfranchise Dems. It’s not working.

          • Shingo

            >> Why compound the ridiculous things you say by pretending to know what “I” think?

            If what you’re saying is not an expression of what you think, then you obviously have a problem.

            >> You’re GOP SHILL propagating nonfactual nonsense to disenfranchise Dems.

            Yeah right. You’re on the same side of the debate as Dick Cheney and John Boener, but I am the one trying to disenfranchise Dems.

            Do you nut jobs even listen to yourselves?

            When Dems were attacking Bush for his surveillance program, Bush apologists were calling them traitors, Bush haters, accusing them of endangering national security blah blah blah ,.. and here you are, behaving in the exactly the same way all because Obama is in the White House.]

            Look, I realize that hit Obama’s approval ratings have taken since the revelation have rattled you, but seriously Jezebel, he’s not going to lose his job over this and the GOP don’t stand a chance in 2016.

            Get a grib.

          • jezebel

            TL;DR :)

            Does Greenwald pay you per post, word, or letter? Being that you refuse to stfu & stop lying despite my consistently calling out your perpetual BS it must be a pretty penny :) BYE TROLL!

          • Shingo

            Do you not have any pint to argue rather that pretend this is all a Libertarian or GOP conspiracy?

          • Shingo

            >> GOP TROLLS don’t get to tell me or any other Liberal what we think.

            Like I said, what you think is obvious and your ideology is knot liberal, but right wing and tribal. You’re not even bothered to think straight and are simply digging in to protect Obama from criticism.

            It’s pathetic really. It’s what Bush maniacs did during the Iraq war.

            >> You’re GOP SHILL propagating nonfactual nonsense to disenfranchise Dems.

            Again, if what I was presenting was to disenfranchise Dems, then it also disenfranchise Repugs, seeing as their are the as$holes who introduced this surveillance crap.

          • Lady Willpower

            You must be a Greenie. You guys are the most melodramatic people on the internet. I can see you clutching your pearls and fainting after every missive.
            Helpful hint: Read every post from a Greenie in a bombastic Margaret Dumont voice.

        • nathkatun7

          It’s really amazing about you members of the Greenwald cult! You’ve really outdone Republicans in projecting.

          • Shingo

            It’s really amazing about you members of the Cesca and Obama cult!

            You’ve really outdone Republicans in projecting.

          • nathkatun7

            Wow! Shingo, you are so creative!

          • Shingo

            Wow Nathkatun,

            You simply have nothing worthwhile to add.

          • jezebel

            Psst! GOPTroll…

            Repeating what we say only underscored the fact that you’re a sheeple. :) LOL!

          • Shingo

            >> Psst! GOPTroll…

            Oh please, don’t even bother wasting your time. I was ecstatic Obama won in 2008 and hugely relieved he was re-elected last year. I spent 2003 – 2008 getting my nose bloodied on right wing blogs basking Bush any chance I got. Much of this mess is due to what Obama inherited from Bush, but I am not going to buy into this fear that if we criticize Obama, the next POTUS might end up being a republican.

          • jezebel

            Don’t waste your time telling us what a good Liberal you “were”. You’re acting like.a #FauxProgressive Teatard.TROLL now & that tells us all we need to know.

            *sunshine smile*

          • Shingo

            >> . You’re acting like.a #FauxProgressive Teatard

            I see. Do you also consider Naomi Klein and Chris Hdges to be FauxProgressive Teatards – because they were complaining about this stuff in 2008

          • jezebel

            In 2008 President Bush was getting blow-back for HIS Patriot Act & HIS policy of ILLEGAL wiretapping.

            Do you really think you’re fooling anyine by conflating separate issues & comparing your GOP TROLL self to legit Libetals? LOL, silly Bagger. Tricks ate for kids.

          • Shingo

            >> In 2008 President Bush was getting blow-back for HIS Patriot Act & HIS policy of ILLEGAL wiretapping.

            What the hell does that have to do with anything? The same policies remain in place under Obama.

            >> Do you really think you’re fooling anyone by conflating separate issues & comparing your GOP TROLL self to legit Liberals?

            You really need to see someone about your heightened paranoia.

          • jezebel

            »» What the hell does that have to do with anything?

            Absolutely nothing. You brought it up to mitigate the appearance of your trolling & confuse people.

          • Shingo

            >> You brought it up to mitigate the appearance of your trolling & confuse people.

            I think you simply are easily confused.

          • jezebel

            »» You really need to see someone about your heightened paranoia.

            You really need to take your shit-stirring, victim-playing#FauxProgressuve Lunatic Libertarian butthome :)

          • Shingo

            You really need to stop trying to outdo Anne Coulter Jezebel.

          • Pelle Svanslös

            Keep on shilling for the NSA and defending the widespread domestic surveillance from criticism. You make Obama, the renewer of the Patriot Act, very very proud.

          • jezebel

            Oh lookie, another Libertarian Lunatic :)

            I like it when the NSA tracks Int’l communications. Unlike you, I’m not a fan of terrorist attacks.

            Further, President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo since his first term. See, he really isn’t the fascist dictator who snaps his fingers & makes things happen the way you Libertarian Lunatics claim.

            Are you ignorant & confused on the facts? Or simply lying like the first GOP TROLL?,:)

          • Pelle Svanslös

            Further, President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo since his first term.

            Oooooh, so that’s why Obama has recently reverse the moratorium on freeing the Yemeni detainees who have already been cleared gitmo; he wanted to keep them there so he can close it! http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375430/white-house-says-moratorium-on.html

            LOLOLOL. Do please keep up; it should make it easier for you baggerfascists to defend Obama’s continuation of Bush policies. :)

          • jezebel

            Where is President Obama going to send Gitmo detainees when CONGRESS had denied all funds to move prisoners? Oops!

            1) How many times do I have to tell you that Informed, smart, people read Cesca & your misleading propaganda doesn’t work here?

            2) Psst! The derisive glee you display while attacking what you claim is your own people/party (LOL!) gives you away every time #FauxProgressive GOP TROLL :)

          • Pelle Svanslös

            Gosh, i guess that explains why he issued a moratorium on releasing the Yemeni detainees who were cleared! But just g’head and ignore that inconvenient truth; the previous president’s loyal defenders did the same, so I’m used to dealing with partisan BS. Only difference now is that it’s coming from people who think they’re on the left ;-)

          • srmark

            Jezebell ..come up with a new friking line..OK? DNC parrot!

          • gnocchi

            Hey, let’s not insult parrots, now!

          • srmark

            Yes, it’s become a cult of personality. EXACTLY the same situation as when Democrats criticized Bush, right-wingers would cry ” Why do you hate the president?” They imagine it’s ALL a persoinal attack on the POTUS.

          • Shingo

            >> Yes, it’s become a cult of personality.

            Sadly it looks like all politics in the US has descended into this sorry state.

            >> EXACTLY the same situation as when Democrats criticized Bush, right-wingers would cry ” Why do you hate the president?”

            Yes, they even came up with the expression “Bush derangement syndrome”, first coined by right wing nut job Charles Karauthammer. If Obama’s poll numbers hadn’t taken a hit and the NYT hadn’t declared that Oabma had lost all credibility, they probably wouldn’t have been the least bit concerned about this.

            I’m just thankful the liberals haven’t been hijacked by the Bible belt or we’d been seeing young kinds on their hands and knees, praying and weeping before cardboard cutouts of Obama like we saw them do at Jesus Camp during the Bush presidency.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg

            though I suspect people like Jezebel are already doing that.

        • nathkatun7

          You are an absolute idiot! You probably came here thinking we could all easily buy into the Glenn Greenwald propaganda bs! But because you can’t rationally challenge Bob Cesca you resort to denigrating him and all of us. Guess what I would rather agree with a rational and well reasoned Bob Cesca than buy into the propaganda hypes of Glenn Greenwald, whose sole mission is his hatred of President Obama. To tell you the truth, the most idiotic cult I’ve come across on numerous sites is the Greenwald cult. Unlike your “Dear Leader” who blocks every one who dares to challenge him, at least Bob Cesca allows all of you, members of the Greenwald cult, to post comments on his blog, no matter how idiotic they may be. Even more tellingly, Bob has not expressed any negativity towards any of you although you have repeatedly attacked him and denigrated his well reasoned, well documented, critiques of your “Dear Leader.”If he was as close minded and insecure as your “Dear Leader, Greenwald” he would by now blocked all your asses.

          • Shingo

            I am not interested in anyone’s BS, least of of Cesca’s, who’s working on the premise that if he can somehow find a crack in a peripheral issue, he discredit the entire story without ever bothering to tackle the main issues.

            It’s actually BobCesca who’s demonstrating an inalienability to to rationally challenge Greenwald’s reporting, and who’s guilty of the very charges he’s accusing others of. Last week, his headline screamed LIAR in the headline, then in the body of the report, he could only bring himself to accuse Greenwald of possibly being misleading.

            Don’t waste your breath on the “hatred of President Obama” BS. That’s exactly the defense the Bush fanatics used to defend Bush. I was ecstatic when Obama won in 2008 and relived when he won re-election, but I am not going to defend his failures and violations out of fear that the Republicans might benefit from this. In case you hadn’t noticed, most of the high ranking Republicans are on Obama’s side in this matter.

            The fact that you resort to such a pathetic and lame defense just proves that a cult is what you belong to. And to be perfectly honest, I am shocked at the extent to which Obama supporters are blindly defending him and his crimes just because they worried the Republicans might benefit.

            >> Bob has not expressed any negativity towards any of you although you have repeatedly attacked him and denigrated his well reasoned

            I beg to differ. As I said, he is guilty of the very charges he has accused others of.

            The guy is a partisan hack and an embarrassment to progressives.

          • jezebel

            “Cesca’s working on the premise that if he can somehow find a crack in a peripheral issue, he discredit the entire story w/o ever bothering to tackle the main issues”…

            LOL! The crux of Greenwald’s propaganda is the dishonest, dumb-fu@k premise that the gov’t was listening to our calls w/o a warrant.

            THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
            GREENWALD LIED.

            Your a sad, stupid troll if you think anyone here is buying your cry-whining, victim-playing, falsehoods. This isn’t “fox nation” or a lunatic Libertarian site. Unlike you bleating sheeple, the people who come here can read & critically think.

          • Shingo

            >> THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.GREENWALD LIED.

            No he did not, and even the NSA are not making that claim.

            >> This isn’t “fox nation” or a lunatic Libertarian site.

            I’m glad, because I don’t waste my time on those. You really to see beyond this being an Obama vs Republican issue. The Republicans are on Obama’s side.

          • Pelle Svanslös

            So the mainstream media is all in on the conspiracy and are purposefully dressing up old stories and passing them off as new? Why? To make Obama look bad?

            Thank you for joining us, Mr Jones. May I call you Alex? No, no; that was unfair. I don’t think even Alex Jones would go that far down the rabbit hole, lol

          • jezebel

            No, the media is just dumb & lazy.

            This isn’t the first time they jump on a scandal bandwagon & use misleading headlines just to grab hits/rating which translate into $…

            I work in media so unlike you, I know what I’m talking about. :)

            Your attempt to make REAL LIBERALS (Dems & independents)

          • Pelle Svanslös

            Your attempt to make REAL LIBERALS (Dems & independents)

            Your clearly do know what you’re talking about it, which is good, because no one else does.

            Bush defenders said the same thing about the media whenever bad news about Bush came out: it’s all misleading headlines, misinformation, “you can’t trust the lamestream media, etc.

            Maybe you should start paying Karl Rove royalties if you’re gonna lift so much from his book.

          • jezebel

            FALSE EQUIVALENCE IS FALSE.

            Likening Liberals to the unthinking, lying, crazy, ditto-head sheeple in your Republican party is also fail #FauxProgressive GOP TROLL :)

          • Pelle Svanslös

            Awwww, the neoliberal thinks its a liberal. Carry on defending your indefinite detention-supporting, Bush war crime-forgiving, Patriot Act-renewing hero!

        • jezebel

          “They believe whatever Cesca says they should”…

          As opposed to you Greenwald PSYCHOphants who believe/propagate every hateful, hyperbolic lie this Lunatic Libertarian pulls out of his Bagger butt? :) *sunshine smile*

      • Shingo

        “No, basically what happened is that the hack who wrote this article completely misrepresented Greenwald’s piece by ommitting any mention of the disturbing facts that he uncovered.”

        Thank you ASkepticalLiberal. These Obama sycophants are making bigger fools of themselves than the Bush sycophants.

      • jezebel

        LOL @ the phony Liberal. :)

        • Shingo

          Here we go. Left wing gatekeepers.

          If you knew anything about Liberals, you would know that what sets them apart from right wingers is that they celebrate diversity of opinion and aren’t afraid to speak out when things are messed up.

          • jezebel

            You don’t need to tell me what “Liberals” are…

            I am one. You on the other hand, are a #FauxProgressive GOP TROLL. You go to Liberal pages, claiming to be.”one of us” all the while trashing our Liberal Dem leaders & policies w/misleading & false, nonsensical, nonfactual propaganda.

            Yes, I’m calling you professional liars out. :)

          • Shingo

            No I am not GOP troll. I am pro choice, pro gay rights, pro regulation, pro immigration, so like I said, don’t waste your time barking up that tree.

            I am probably to the left of you. And if you were a liberal, you would appreciate diversity of opinion and the willingness to openly criticize Liberal Dem leaders & policies if we don;t agree with them. That’s what being a liberal is.

            This story did not begin with Obama, but with Bush in 2001, when he approved warrant less wiretaps. You’re reflexive response that this is about attacking Obama is simply based on ignorance.

            It’s embarrassing that I have to even explain it to you.

          • jezebel

            #FauxProgressive GOP TROLL how many times do I have to tell you I don’t give a damn about your so-called Liberal “cred”?

            All that matters is you’re spreading Libertarian lunatic GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA now. And if you’re propagating falsehoods Guess what?

            YOU’RE A LIAR –
            & NOTHING YOU SAY CAN BE TRUSTED.

            Bye, bye #FauxProgressive TROLL :)

          • Shingo

            Again Jezebel,

            How can I be spreading lunatic GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA when the GOP is not only responsible for introducing these policies, but are on Obama’s side in this issue?

            You really have given up thinking straight and are simply reacting emotionally. Paranoids trust no one, not I don;t expect you to trust me eitehr.

          • jezebel

            Since you’re still playing stupid to deceive people, I’ll spell it out: Libertarian Lunatics are Republicans. Thus, your propagation of Greenwad’s bullsh!t is GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA

            Your attempts to play innocent aren’t working #FauxProgressive GOP TROLL.

          • Shingo

            You’re making a fool of yourself jezebel.

            These are not GOP lies, because the GOP is not using them. They cannot be neocon talking points if the neocons are not using them.

            And Clapper, Obama’s director of intelligence, has already admitted he answered the questions pertaining to the NSA in the “least untruthful manner” possible, so he has admitted to lying on behalf of Obama.

          • jezebel

            Since when does not disclosing NSA secrets = lying? Only in your Lunatic, Libertarian, Obama-hating world.

            I’m officially tired if your dishonest dumb-fu@kery. You’re either incredibly stupid or deceitful & guess what? Neither asshat deserves intelligent people’s time or attention.

            Bye #FauxProgressive GOP TROLL :)

          • Shingo

            >> Since when does not disclosing NSA secrets = lying?
            He didn’t refuse to disclosing NSA secrets, he gave a false answer which he admitted to doing. That’s lying.

            >> Only in your Lunatic, Libertarian, Obama-hating world.

            That’s all this is for you isn’t it? How to stop Obama looking bad. Screw the facts or the issues of the debate. In your partisan mind, this is all one big conspiracy to undermine Obama.

            >> I’m officially tired if your dishonest dumb-fu@kery.

            Officially huh? I can understand how trying to sound coherent when you are acting purely from an emotive and reactive head space. You simply don’t have a leg to stand on so you’re flailing about like a salmon out of water and it’s clearly taking it’s toll.

            Poor dear.

          • srmark

            I’ve had many exchanges w/folks like jezebel. They are LOST in their partisan fog. I never imagined Democrats (I used to be one?) would become as blindly loyal to party as are many Republicans. It’s pathetic.

          • Shingo

            It’s beyond pathetic. Like I said, jezebel sounds like the Democrats answer to Anne Coulter, though just as right wing in the tribalism and vitriol.

            It just goes to show that if you go far enough to the left, you end up on the extreme right.

          • jezebel

            It’s cute how you made another troll profile weeks after this link Was 1st published for the SOLE PURPOSE of trying to discredit me, ‘cuz I’ve been kicking ypur lying, lunatic, Libertarian GOP Bagger butt so hard. :) Haha!

          • srmark

            I wasn’t aware there was a time limit to post comments.. and it’s only been 5 days ding-dong ..not “weeks.” Anyhow, your comments are so over-the-top; I had to respond. You must be the the Democrat’s version of Anne Coulter, after all she IS your role-model. Hahaha!!

          • srmark

            Jezebel, (apropo moniker) your brand of “liberal” is a card-carrying all-partisan DNC Blue Team cheering Obamaboter. NOT a real progressive or true liberal ..just a loyal (and lame)team player.

          • Shingo

            What’s most disappointing is to see that so called “liberals” have sunken to the depths that the Bush loyalists displayed in the aftermath of the Iraq war. I thought this level of partisan and tribalism extremism was a right wing phenomenan, but I now realize I was very much mistaken.

          • drsquid

            No, they celebrate fact over fiction. You don’t, wingboy.

      • chrisj

        “…ommitting any mention of the disturbing facts that he uncovered.”

        I was disturbed to learn that Mr. Greenwald nor his editor, Mr. Alan Rusbridger, are not culpable of any crime for publishing stolen top secret classified documents.

  • ASkepticalLiberal

    What an utterly ridiculous and blatantly dishonest description of Greenwald’s article.

    Here is what you failed to note:
    – The NSA regularly intercepts domestic communications “inadvertently.”
    – The NSA listens to these communications.
    – When evidence arises that indicates that the target may be American, the NSA listens some more to find out if this is true.
    – Even if the target is known to be an American, the NSA will still retain and disseminate information if they believe that it falls into three extremely broad and undefined categories: it relates to national security, it contains evidence of a crime (so much for the whole “This is only an anti-terror tool” claims) or contains information relevant to cyber security (whatever that means). Oh, and they also keep all encrypted communications.
    – Even intelligence culled from conversations between an American lawyer and his American client can be retained and disseminated.
    – The FISA court’s role in all this is merely to sign off on the policies. The court does not make any attempt to verify how the policies are actually used.
    -Given the scope of NSA’s data vacuuming, it is absolutely inevitable that American citizens’ communications will routinely be “inadvertently” collected and analyze.

    It’s really quite incredible that you would quote Obama’s carefully worded claim to Charlie Rose about intentional targeting of Americans but failed to mention his initial statement: “Nobody is listening to your phone calls.” Greenwald’s documents prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was a lie.

    I have no idea what your goal is here, but your smear campaign has been absolutely sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • mrbrink

      “Targeted” is nice word to use when you want people to think you’re being victimized over and over by “President Obummer.”

      You’re being “targeted” and “intercepted.” Get over yourselves.

      “To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant.”

      And:

      “Once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately.”

      Minimized, anonymized, and overseen by the highest authorities in our democratically-elected government of checks and balances. What don’t you get about all that?

      I know, I know. You must think national security secrets should be posted like the White House beer recipe.

      This is why it’s important to elect the most trustworthy people available to government positions. Putting the most trustworthy people available in charge of our courts, our global defenses, budget priorities, social contracts, and national security requires you to be a good judge of character every two years. I know, I know. We should all just buy a gun and hunker down with our big bag of killer creeper weed until the time traveling black choppers arrive on the slippery slope in the year 1787. You are blowing it.

      • ASkepticalLiberal

        Nonsense. Greenwald clearly shows that the FISC only signs off on NSA’s statement claiming that the policies as stated are constitutional. Citizens have sought judicial review, but they’ve been thwarted time and again by invocation of state secrets privilege and dismissals based on lack of standing (“You can’t sue us for secret spying if you can’t prove we’ve spyed on you.”)

        The President clearly claimed that nobody is listening to Americans’ phone calls. Greenwald proved that they not only listen, but share and disseminate information, even from attorney client calls.

        Of course you’d never know that from Cesca’s dishonest account.

        • villemar

          You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. Although the NSA might find your didactic, pedantic, tiresome, stock Greenwaldian Zerobummer Aspergarian tl;dr rants (which I am sure are strewn about various emoprog sites) to be good info to forward to the National Science Foundation for non-pharmacological insomnia cure research.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            This has nothing to do with who I am. Cesca misrepresents Greenwald’s article. If you had actually read it, you would know that.

          • Badgerite

            I did actually read it. Did you read any of the articles cited in Cesca’s post? I’ll bet not.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            I sure did. I’m shocked, though, that you could have read Greenwald’s article and believe that this accurately describes his claims or conclusions.

          • nathkatun7

            Your shock may be because you uncritically read Greenwald’s articles, your screen name notwithstanding. If you were a truly “A Skeptical Liberal” you would have read all the articles linked too here and in some of the previous posts by Bob Cesca. You would also have read some of the walk backs by both the WP, the Guardian, and even GG himself about GG’s original charge of NSA having direct access to phone calls and e-mails. So far, the only reference you repeatedly offer is “Greenwald’s article.”

          • nathkatun7

            I am actually beginning to think that you are the one who has not read Greenwald’s articles in their entirety as some of us have. You also have not read articles by people, including some Civil Libertarians, with expertise in NSA operation who have challenged your “Dear Leader.” It seems your mission here is to defend your “Dear Leader” who you consider to be wise beyond reproach. Any one who dares to challenge him must be trashed.

        • Badgerite

          Only if the attorney/client calls contain ‘foreign intelligence information’ and then only that part will be retained and all other communications filtered out for purposes of prosecution.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            I don’t trust the known liars at the NSA to police themselves.

          • formerlywhatithink

            And there it is. The answer that’s always pulled out as a last resort.

            “Well, I don’t trust them or Obama or the government or [insert pet organization] so anything someone says that slanders them is always right and anyone who argues against me is ignorant/Obama bot/[insert favorite childish insult].”

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            It’s not a “last resort.” It’s completely relevant. Or do you think Clapper was being honest when he answered Wyden? Or that Obama was being honest when he said that nobody was listening to calls?

          • nathkatun7

            Do you have any evidence that GENERAL Clapper and PRESIDENT Obama were lying? Until you can produce concrete evidence to back up your accusations you really need to STFU!

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            I’ll give you three lies:

            1. Ron Wyden asked James Clapper if the NSA collects any type of data on millions of Americans. Clapper says no. Then we learn that they get data on every cell phone call that everyone makes everyday. That was a lie.

            2. Barack Obama claims that nobody is listening to Americans’ phone calls. You certainly wouldn’t know it from this shameless smear, but the documents that Greenwald released prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they routinely “inadvertently” listen to domestic comms. Since “somebody” is the opposite of “nobody,” that’s a lie.

            3. The NSA has long claimed that they couldn’t even give a ballpark estimate of how many Americans are surveilled. Greenwald published documents describing a program that does just that.

          • nathkatun7

            This is all gibberish and you know it! All I ask is cite me a real innocent person whose communication has been listened to that resulted in some harm to that person. I repeat I trust GENERAL Clapper and PRESIDENT Obama more than I trust you and Glenn Greenwald!

          • nathkatun7

            Absolutely, THIS!!!

          • nathkatun7

            So for you It’s all about what you trust but not about the evidence of wrong doing? If you want to go there, I personally trust the NSA (No one, and not you has proven that they are “known liars), more than I trust the propagandist Obama hater, Glenn Greenwald, masquerading as a journalist. He should stick to propaganda and stop giving journalism a bad name.

      • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

        Who do you think you’re kidding with these one line quotes? The article goes on directly from the first:

        One such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order,
        signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures
        submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment. … Where the NSA has no specific information on a person’s location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues. … If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US, analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case.

        Go ahead and read the whole thing, the ellipses are just for space. This is under the section “One-paragraph order”

        • Badgerite

          The ‘one-paragraph order’ actually starts with the words:

          For reasons stated in the Memorandum of Opinion and in reliance on the entire record, the court finds…..

          This is called incorporation by reference. Just because Snowden could pilfer documents does not mean he could pilfer them comprehensively. The ‘detailed legal rulings or explanation’ would be in the Memorandum of Opinion and the entire reocrd which in his infinite wisdom, Snowden did not see fit to pilfer.

          • nathkatun7

            Go ahead and teach!

      • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

        And immediately after the second quote: “Once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately.”

        However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones.

        The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and
        the policy states “communications which may be retained include
        electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA’s ability to filter communications”.

        Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic – entirely within the US – the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains “significant foreign intelligence information”, “evidence of a crime”, “technical data base information” (such as encrypted communications), or
        “information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or
        property”.

        Domestic communications containing none of the above
        must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules.

        • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

          “Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed.”

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            But it’s just fine with you if someone “inadvertently” listens to my call, suspects that I’m discussing a pot deal or an illegal NCAA pool and immediately forwards it to law enforcement, right?

          • nathkatun7

            Please stop raising hypotheticals. Produce evidence that that has happened to you or any one else. Sometimes I hear cracks in my house but that doesn’t mean that there ghosts in my house. Although If I chose to believe that there are ghosts there is virtually nothing a rational person, who sees and hears no ghosts, can do to convince me otherwise. Of course if the rational person truly cared about me he/she may urge me to see a shrink hoping that a profession might cure my delusion of hearing non-existent ghosts in my house.

          • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

            Yeah, I can read. Is your point that the NSA doesn’t keep all domestic communication?

          • nathkatun7

            “Is your point that the NSA doesn’t keep all domestic communication?”

            That’s is the point! So what is your point? If you are contending that NSA keeps all or some of the “domestic communication,” where is your evidence? The burden is on you and your dear leader Greenwald to produce concrete evidence to back up your inflammatory charges.

          • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

            Did you read the documents? Can you read? Here’s another walk through for you: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/depth-review-new-nsa-documents-expose-how-americans-can-be-spied-without-warrant

    • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

      Completely agree with ASL. You know who else does? The ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/nsa-claims-broad-authority-monitor-americans-international-calls-and-emails We are only hours away from a whole host of people, probably including Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall (who haven’t been mentioned by Bob yet), from agreeing with Greenwald’s statements.

      What shocks me is not that there is a maniacal urge to dismiss and smear Greenwald, but that people think he’s stupid. You think he would make claims of these sorts without documentary evidence?

      • adept2u

        Funny for some reason people who can’t make the moral distinction from the Klan and myself doesn’t give me great confidence in their opinion.

        • Cobbesca

          This is very, very stupid. The thing you conflate is a right to free speech and immoral, unethical and disgusting speech which is still protected under the constitution. You don’t need to agree with the speech to defend someone’s freedom to do so. Again, this is very ugly smear and really, really stupid.

          • adept2u

            Thank you now that I know your opinion I’ll give it the weight it deserves. I shoved it up the back of a gnats ass and it was like a BB in a boxcar.

          • Cobbesca

            Don’t let anyone ever tell you aren’t the cleverest little anti-constitutional nut out there. Don’t you let them.

            Btw:
            “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

            There are few exceptions to this rule and none of them contain the abridgment of hate speech, as long as it does not incite violence – [To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
            Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).]

            Otherwise, you are free to say anything you choose.But those are obviously just words to you. The ACLU may be defending a despicable group of people but the whole point is that free speech is for everyone, not just the people you agree with or should we all just bow down to “your” version of freedom. Pray tell what are the abridgments I should abide by in your cute little world where no one ever says anything offensive to anyone?

          • adept2u

            I wasn’t engaging in a constitutional discussion as I stated in my original comment I was discussing moral distinctions. You’re like one of those tests where the first thing says do nothing, but at the end you’re standing on one leg clucking like a chicken.

          • Cobbesca

            But you did engage in a constitutional discussion when you weighed in on the moral compass of the ACLU for defending someone’s right to free speech. You can’t separate the reasons for the ACLU doing what it did by invoking only moral reasons. You see, I would contend that the ACLU was acting amorally and engaging solely in a constitutional argument whereas you prefer to only look at the morality in question and ignore the whole purpose of defending the KKK’s right to free speech, the fucking constitution. Good luck with teh stupid. This gnat is through with these cramped quarters, I’m outta here.

          • nathkatun7

            Obviously someone who does not have relatives who were killed by KKK violence incited by KKK speech would suggest that KKK speech is just simply “unethical, immoral and disgusting speech.”

          • Lady Willpower

            Sure, no biggie! Jes’ folks gettin’ together and jawin’ is all!
            And yeah, there might be some “strange fruit” left behind in the trees, but it’s just one of those things that happens sometimes. Got nothing to do with the unethical speech right before.

      • Badgerite

        Yes, I do. I don’t have the time today to read all of the current released material. Got things to do. But even a cursory reading tells me right off the initial claims of ‘direct access’ and all I need is an email and I can spy on anyone up to and including the president was total horse hockey. If anything thing, it is quite clear that there is quite an effort made to not allow that and still keep an eye out for information that would indicate terrorist activity or communication. By the way, the 9/11 attacker took two jetliners loaded with fuel and sought to crash them into downtown Manhattan at 9 AM. The death toll was in the thousands but they were clearly looking for a death toll in the tens of thousands. Let’s keep that in mind, shall we. If anything, all the ‘revelations’ have made me more comfortable with the system, not less. There are checks and balances and they are taken seriously. I’m relieved.

        • nathkatun7

          “If anything, all the ‘revelations’ have made me more comfortable with the system, not less. There are checks and balances and they are taken seriously. I’m relieved.”

          Badgerite, I am with you 100%! Especially when I did not see this level of outrage from the “holier than thou” leftist/libertarians when it was revealed in 2006 that NSA was conducting surveillance without warrants.

    • Badgerite

      Court rulings on the Fourth Amendment provide that even if police are searching for something spelled out with particularity in the search warrant but see evidence of criminal activity in plain sight while they are conducting the search, that evidence will be admissible in a court of law. It is called the ,wait for it, ‘plain sight’ rule. Another words, the government may not be searching for it, but if during a legitimate search they uncover evidence of a crime, it is no longer covered by the Fourth Amendment. The courts have always and will continue to make reasonable exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, such as evidence in plain sight or exigent circumstances ( that is a situation where time is of the essence to prevent harm). Cyber security or national security would probably fall into the exigent circumstances category. Additionally, Greenwald claims that the court order he show does not state any legal justifications and this is not true. Any lawyer reading that order would notice the phrase it starts with: “For reasons stated in the Memorandum or Opinion and in reliance on the entire record, the court finds…..” This is called incorporation by reference and the legal justifications are contained in the referenced documents. Apparently, Snowden cannot pilfer documents comprehensively.

      • ASkepticalLiberal

        The suggestion that this program is obviously covered by previous case law is simply inaccurate. The Supreme Court has never ruled on a program like this, one that conducts highly invasive searches without any pretense of securing a warrant as mandated by the Fourth Amendment.

        • Matthew Ryan

          Previous FISC rulings.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            Previous secret rulings by a secret court that have been kept from appellate courts that decide issues of law on an actual adversarial process in which the government’s statements of facts aren’t taken at face value? I am quite impressed by this level of “oversight!”

          • Matthew Ryan

            I just thought you might like to know your previous comment was factually incorrect. My mistake.

          • ASkepticalLiberal

            Sorry, I don’t understand.

          • nathkatun7

            Just because the FISA Court is secret does not mean it’s not a court. Just because you don’t trust the FISA court does not necessarily mean that the court has done any thing improper. What you and Greenwald have failed to produce is evidence of impropriety by either the NSA or the FISA Court. Now if you want to get rid of NSA and the FISA Court, because you don’t think there should be any secrecy in handling National Security, all power to you. I am one American citizen who strongly believes that protecting this country requires some measure of secrecy. I definitely trust President Obama and Sen. Feinstein over Edward Snowden and Glenn Greewald to ensure our security while protecting our rights. The only thing that will shake that trust is empirical evidence that clearly shows that the privacy of innocent Americans is being violated. But where there is probable cause that someone is trying to do us harm then it’s reasonable to use surveillance to protect us.

        • Badgerite

          I didn’t say it was covered by previous case law. I am saying that the exceptions that someone else suggested were unreasonable are within the principles laid down by the court when considering Fourth Amendment cases. There are recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. And I can’t see any reason why those exceptions would not apply in the case of this program. If you see evidence of criminality while conducting a search and the initial search is within the law, and in this case the law would be laid out by the FISA Court and Congress, all bets are off and they may proceed to investigate the criminality uncovered. Period. There is nothing exceptional about that exception. And nothing objectionable either.

        • nathkatun7

          There is absolutely no evidence that the so called “program” is “highly invasive.” Absolutely none! All you are doing here is pure hype!

    • Shingo

      “I have no idea what your goal is here, but your smear campaign has been absolutely sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

      Superbly put again ASkepticalLiberal, though the goal here is pretty obvious. Protect Obama and deflect all criticism against him, being it legitimate or otherwise.

      • Lady Willpower

        “Superbly put again ASkepticalLiberal, because you and I are definitely not the same person!”

        • Shingo

          Nice example of rampant tribalism there Lady Willpower.

          Seriously, some of you people are more loopy than the right wing nut jobs at Little Green Footballs and Instapundit.

          • Lady Willpower

            “Rampant tribalism?”

            Does Greenwald have a little glossary that you all read from? I know he has his “people try to discredit me, this is why they’re wrong” FAQ, but I didn’t know he had you memorizing terms now.
            Also, Little Green Footballs is hardly a hotbed of right wing thought. I guess you haven’t checked in there for the last 5 years.

  • blackdaug

    Well, thats funny, because the few remaining network newscasts referring to the story still lead in with something like “…since the devastating revelations of the comprehensive NSA surveillance program called PRISM…were released in a spectacular series in the Guardian and the Washington Post….two weeks ago……”
    I wasn’t aware there had been any new developments in the story. Except maybe it was an even worse example of rampant government over reach than we had first feared.
    Wow, it looks like I may have to reevaluate the entire narrative based on these emerging revisions to this groundbreaking bit of investigative journalism.
    That is what I would now do… ….if I hadn’t been busy screaming it at my monitor since the day it all fucking came out !!!!