Obama eavesdropping?

  • Thread starter fishwhistle
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
and sorry to tag on a post but just gotta say it.....

more of a blanket statement to a lot of people....

the world you grew up in from the 1950s~~ to sept 11, 2001 is over. get over it.


Actually dude, the NSA was established in 1952 by Truman. This shit has been going on for a looooooooong time.

The intelligence community actually didn't change post 9-11 very much. We just became more aware of it and the power they always had was made legal and put on the books.
 
Classic Remix

Classic Remix

1,800
263
well the world wasnt what it was now back then either. even as far as WHAT they could look at. we had no internet cell phones or texting.... so that point doesnt draw to me as much as the quality of life back then vs. now.
 
fishwhistle

fishwhistle

4,686
263
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but you might want to know what's actually been reported before commenting on it.

The info that was shared with the NSA from Verizon was metadata only. This includes stuff like hardware in use, locations (if GPS capable), and participants. No conversations were recorded or turned over to the government. This doesn't qualify as eavesdropping. It is data mining.

Furthermore this was done mostly for business accounts, not normal consumer accounts.

There were trying to pinpoint locations of terrorists, plan and simple.

Now you're well within your rights to dislike that still, and I don't blame you for it--but get the facts straight.

Three things should also be noted:

1. This is every day stuff for the NSA and you're only hearing about it because of a leak to "The Guardian". The NSA likely has hundreds of programs like this one in place and they have for decades. Kolah is actually right on the money here.

2. This program started in 2006 under then-president Bush (this is now public knowledge). So let's not choose to be disingenuous and put the entire blame on Obama. This is another example of selective conservative memory.

3. The president typically isn't the one who is briefed on these programs, instead it is CONGRESS who receives the brief and gives the okay.

Take all of that as you will.
You start your post with "im not trying to be a dick here"?Of course you are,we all know it by now,Are you sure your not Jay Carney?lol.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
You start your post with "im not trying to be a dick here"?Of course you are,we all know it by now,Are you sure your not Jay Carney?lol.


I am trying to be a dick sometimes, I'll give you that. A lot of times even.

This time I'm honestly not.

There are these things called facts. You aren't entitled to your own versions of them (<------this is me being a dick).

I'm not even arguing whether or not you should be pissed. I think there's still perfectly good reasons to be pissed about all of this.

I just don't think you should make shit up along the way. That's not very helpful to anyone.


 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
well the world wasnt what it was now back then either. even as far as WHAT they could look at. we had no internet cell phones or texting.... so that point doesnt draw to me as much as the quality of life back then vs. now.


Fair enough. Just making the point that the world as far as the intentions of the government and intelligence community haven't really been changed. The world itself (ie. your point of cell phones, internet, etc) is what has changed.

You'll note these are all things which we opt into, though.
 
Ohiofarmer

Ohiofarmer

932
93
Fair enough. Just making the point that the world as far as the intentions of the government and intelligence community haven't really been changed. The world itself (ie. your point of cell phones, internet, etc) is what has changed.

You'll note these are all things which we opt into, though.
lmao :banghead:
 
Natural

Natural

2,536
263
It's tough to be an Obama supporter Squiggly...disregarding that I think he's cake boy..I still think he's a corporate shill sell out with tons of Bush appointees at his side. Two-faced lawyer lying politician. Everybody wanted a new JFK..and they they got Barry the guy who likes to re-write the Constitution to take away our rights and please corporate interests. As for Congress we should flush the bunch of them, save the rare few.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
It's tough to be an Obama supporter Squiggly...disregarding that I think he's cake boy..I still think he's a corporate shill sell out with tons of Bush appointees at his side. Two-faced lawyer lying politician. Everybody wanted a new JFK..and they they got Barry the guy who likes to...

Honestly you had me until this next part of the quote.

re-write the Constitution to take away our rights and please corporate interests. As for Congress we should flush the bunch of them, save the rare few.


That's just hyperbole dude. Care to share with us an example of this type of thing?

As far as I can tell this is only true in the minds of the conservative media and those who consume it.

Let's get something straight:

Congress writes the laws. This dude just signs off on them. He's only really signed off on one of note during his entire tenure and it falls considerably short of "taking away our rights".

Taking away our money (via a tax) is probably a better way to put it.

What he's done, while perfectly assailable and not necessarily something you have to agree with, is a FAR cry from re-writing the constitution. Understand that I'm not trying to say he's done a bunch of good and excellent things, I'm just saying you're blowing the shit out of proportion.

What he's done may very well be bad and awful and there are plenty of ways you can justify saying so. Discussing non-existent loss of rights and the integrity of the unchanged Constitution are not examples of those ways.

Again. Disagree, talk down, hell even hate the guy--but don't make shit up. That is silly.
 
fishwhistle

fishwhistle

4,686
263
You know you have the perfect avatar squigs,you think you have the last word on everything,every one is inferior to you in intelect and not inteligent enough to have an opinion or make up their own mind.Good luck to you in all your endeavors whatever they are this week,concert violinist,juliard student,heroin dealer,black belt,mad scientist,genius,meltdown moderator or simply just playing online video games with state department employees while the embassy is being attacked:rolleyes:,it must be so hard to keep all the bullshit straight.Threads all yours squigs,take it away oh mighty one,your parents must be so proud...
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
You know you have the perfect avatar squigs,you think you have the last word on everything,every one is inferior to you in intelect and not inteligent enough to have an opinion or make up their own mind.Good luck to you in all your endeavors whatever they are this week,concert violinist,juliard student,heroin dealer,black belt,mad scientist,genius,meltdown moderator or simply just playing online video games with state department employees while the embassy is being attacked:rolleyes:,it must be so hard to keep all the bullshit straight.Threads all yours squigs,take it away oh mighty one,your parents must be so proud...


Dude, attacking me doesn't change the fact that what you posted in the OP is total bullshit. Nice try though.

Lies beget more lies.

Fact is you don't know shit about me dude.

I'll tell ya what I'm gonna do for you. Since I'm not growing anything currently or for awhile I'll play a song for you on the violin, since it's soooo unbelievable that I'd be able to do that--and just to clear that list up for you:

1. I was never a student at Juliard, I was invited to audition for them and turned it down (like a retard) because I was quitting violin.

2. I definitely sold heroin and I only admitted that here to make a point about how terrible that shit is, it's not something I'm super proud of so we can take that off the list if you want to deny it for me.

3. I never said I was a black belt. Or that I'm even particularly skilled in any physical way. I'm sure many folks here would give me a lickin'. I'm only 5'9" and I'm a skinny fucker. I've been in my share of fights, but I knew who not to talk shit to (people much larger than me), let's keep that clear.

4. I'm not a mad scientist either, they don't let you do crazy shit at university.

5. I CERTAINLY never said I was a genius. Just because I seem like one when you compare yourself with me doesn't mean I've made the claim.

6. I certainly did melt down as a moderator. It turns out its really difficult to handle bullshit. Who knew? I won't make any excuses, I did what I did--period. Unlike you, I can accept when I'm wrong without having to turn my sights on someone else to make up for my inadequacy.

7. Believe it or not I played EVE online with the guy. It's a small world. I didn't say he was my uncle or best friend. I just knew a bit about the dude and shot some internet spaceships with him from time to time. I happen to know he wouldn't like this shit being politicized, would you like that to be what your death was about?


If all of this shit is so unbelievable to you, I wonder how incredibly boring your own life must be.

You can't believe that I:

Play an instrument, sold drugs at one point, went to college, or play videogames?

If that's unbelievable bullshit to you, your life must be utter shit.


Regardless of all this, and back to the topic, your original post is bullshit and I corrected you.

Getting your pannies in a bunch about it and turning your sights to me (as predictably happens with you and a few others each time I prove you wrong) won't change that.

You still had to be corrected by someone the likes of myself. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Maybe read an article about the bullshit you're posting next time before you post it--or hell, learn to read in general (I'm not sure you can sometimes).

I'll get back to you with that violin performance, I'll make sure to put some markers in it so you know it's me and that I didn't just steal it offline or some bullshit. Hell, maybe I'll even log into my eve online account and show you Vile Rat's character while I'm at it, lol.
 
Natural

Natural

2,536
263
Honestly you had me until this next part of the quote.

That's just hyperbole dude. Care to share with us an example of this type of thing?

but don't make shit up. That is silly.

He was a Constitution Professor for crying out loud...he's supposed to respect it!
Instead he manages to trample on it as if it didn't exist. Take into consideration the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. He has carried forward nearly every one of the "war on terror" powers introduced by Bush, in fact he has made many of them worse.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
He was a Constitution Professor for crying out loud...he's supposed to respect it!
Instead he manages to trample on it as if it didn't exist. Take into consideration the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. He has carried forward nearly every one of the "war on terror" powers introduced by Bush, in fact he has made many of them worse.


Again. Examples of these attacks please?

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the capacity in which Americans can bear arms. In fact it really discusses need for a well organized militia, but I won't get into the nitpicky things about the 2nd amendment here. End of the day he waited for Congress to do something.

They didnt, nothing happened. End of story.

As for the First amendment, there have been no attacks on this from the administration. Let's clarify something. Releasing classified information as a government official IS NOT free speech. It's treason.

Also, despite their moaning and groaning--no members of the press have been charged or threatened with charges during the course of their activities.


The Fourth Amendment rights have just been stamped on by the Supreme Court but Obama can't do shit about that sadly.

I think the problem here is that you don't understand how our system of government works. Obama isn't running the whole thing.

He hasn't changed the constitution ONE BIT or enacted a SINGLE law which has gone against it.

Provide an example of a law he signed which has and I'll gladly get on the hate Obama train with you. The fact is that you can't, because it hasn't happened.
 
NaturalTherapy

NaturalTherapy

Lighthouse
Supporter
2,043
263
Some perspectives I read this morning...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/obama-lying-about-big-brother

As of this moment, Obama is making the case that the US government is not eavesdropping on phone calls. Specifically, he said "nobody is listening to your phone calls - they are just looking at phone numbers and duration of calls" and concluded that the NSA was only engaged in "modest encroachments." It was unclear if that clarification was meant to put to rest fears that Big Brother has made personal privacy a thing of the past. He further went on to add that the telephone surveillance program is fully vetted by Congress and supervised by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). In other words: Obama is making the case that the NSA's Big Brother supervision is perfectly legal and not only that, there are checks and balances and neither the telephonic snooping nor the internet supervision is anything to be concerned about. There is one problem: Obama is lying.

Back in April 2009, three months into the Obama regime, none other than the NSA admitted it has overstepped its legal boundaries. As the NYT reported: "The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews. "

NYT goes on: [original NYT link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=0 ]

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved.

As part of a periodic review of the agency’s activities, the department “detected issues that raised concerns,” it said. Justice Department officials then “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance” with the law and court orders, the statement said. It added that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. went to the national security court to seek a renewal of the surveillance program only after new safeguards were put in place.
The same Eric Holder who is currently being investigated for perjury before congress. As for "compliance" 4 years later it seems nothing has changed.

As for Obama's clear conscience:

The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
Well thank god the most transparent administration held classified briefings to discuss the biggest government espionage program ever conceived. One may have gotten ideas otherwise...

Finally, on Obama's pinky swear that it is only foreigners' emails and iMessages that are being intercepted, turns out he is lying here too:

In recent weeks, the eavesdropping agency notified members of the Congressional intelligence committees that it had encountered operational and legal problems in complying with the new wiretapping law, Congressional officials said.

Officials would not discuss details of the overcollection problem because it involves classified intelligence-gathering techniques. But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.
And so on.

In short: what difference does it make - it is only the stripping of the most fundamental privacy rights of US citizens! And how else can you build a totalitarian government if you don't give up some freedoms - good heavens, one can't ask the poor president to provide 100% security without experiencing some "inconvenience" and handing over a little privacy. Or a lot.

In the end, let's not forget what really matters: the NSA spying program is from the government, and it is here to help you.
------------------------


For the sake of the length of this post, here is another article along the same lines
http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...hifty-cia-funded-data-collecting-company-says
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
I could sit here and reply to everything individually--but I'll just make a few points.

1. This article shoots itself in the foot by saying Obama is lying now for something which happened in 2009 and which has already been addressed. That's broken logic. Obama is addressing the situation now, not in 2009--and there's no evidence to suggest the oversteps haven't been remedied.

2. Of course the briefings about our espionage programs. Get a grip, this type of thing is what the word classified is meant for.

3. Ultimately the agency is discussing the problem with congress and has identified that there is a problem. That's much better than collecting data unlawfully willy-nilly. The nature of this program makes it very clear that this is a computer/database issue. If it were a personnel issue they'd simply tell them to stop it rather than report they're having trouble being compliant with law. I assure you, this type of transparency is something that, when it concerns the NSA, you are seeing for the first time under this administration. It may not be the transparency you want, but it's much better than nothing. Like it or not that's progress.


I actually agree with the overarching point which is that our intelligence community routinely steps over the bounds. They've been doing this for years and we've all known about it, let's be honest.

I'm not against people disliking what's going on--but I am against people being coy and acting like it's all happening for the first time under Obama. That's ridiculous.

Keep in mind, Obama asked for the power to restructure these agencies and change their operating procedures--Congress denied him this via a filibuster. That's how our government works. He can't fix a lot of this shit without Congress, and these are the dudes calling the shots. They know as much which is why you actually see a good amount of congressmen (even republicans) defending the NSA info sharing shit.

Honestly if you hate this stuff look at congress over the last 30 years. They are briefed on ALL of this, and they okay all of it. They write the laws and the rules. Most of this stuff is decided by committee and does not require president's signature (because a lot of it is classified and, thus, off the books).

I'm not saying Obama doesn't bear some blame here, but hanging the woes of the intelligence community on him is--for lack of a better way to say it--fucking retarded. You'd have to be a fool to believe that all of this shit is new. Furthermore you have to totally misunderstand our system of government to believe that the president controls this stuff from the oval office. Congress houses the intelligence committees, receives the briefings, makes many of the appointments, and holds the power of final authorization.

If anything what's new is you hearing even a peep about it from anywhere in the government.
 
Natural

Natural

2,536
263
Ya..take Obama's word for it. Certainly with all the scandals going on the NSA certainly isn't including any whistleblowers in their data collection operations...pfffft.
Usually Liberals are very forthright on Civil Liberties...that's why he's labeled a Marxist.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
Ya..take Obama's word for it. Certainly with all the scandals going on the NSA certainly isn't including any whistleblowers in their data collection operations...pfffft.
Usually Liberals are very forthright on Civil Liberties...that's why he's labeled a Marxist.


He's labeled a Marxist because the people who label him that way don't know shit about Karl Marx. Plain and simple--but, I digress.

The choice to call such people "whistleblowers" is another conservative spin when it comes to this topic.

Please understand as there are no two ways about this. The law says that it is not legal for a government official to leak information which is classified.

In instances where this information is militaristic or intelligence based, such a leak may be considered aiding the enemy which is a treasonous act and may be punishable by death. This shit is not a joke.

There is NO SUCH THING as a whistleblower of classified information. Like it or not, that's what the law says.

A whistleblower is a person who works at a private entity who blows the whistle about a law being broken--NOT a person who breaks the law to share classified information. These two types of persons are very different, even if their motives may sometimes be similar.

Now, if you dislike that policy--that's fine. Take it up with Congress. Until they change THE LAW, this is how things are.

He certainly IS and SHOULD BE including government officials who are breaking the law in lawful efforts undertaken by the intelligence community. This is known as counter-intelligence--which covers anything from providing false intelligence to enemies to preventing intelligence about our own operations from falling into enemy hands (which includes leaks from officials).

Obama is RIGHTLY prosecuting more people who perpetrate these ILLEGAL leaks than ever before. That's how shit should be under the law. Again, if you don't like it you must take it up with congress. The justice department doesn't write the laws, it carries out their will. Frankly, the same thing goes for medical marijuana and the JD's response to that--much as it pains me to say it.
 
Natural

Natural

2,536
263
Yes that's exactly it..Marxist for lack of better words(or understanding)..he's not pleased Liberals or Conservatives. He had both Houses in first term and failed to pass Single Payer health care system and instead Obamacare. Which I predict will fail miserably defacing his party and that a Single Payer Act will be signed in the future by a Republican no doubt.

I'm not speaking about the DOJ AP leaks...what do we know of intimidation tactics taking place amongst all the hoopla as of late? We don't, but that's assuming. Time will tell and your right all this is nothing new.. not even 100 years old new..but it doesn't excuse the abuse or fix the problem. We can only hope that WW3 doesn't break out with Obama at the helm or we might kiss the rest of our Civil Liberties goodbye.
 
Top Bottom