Ok so they are watching and listening to us. Here's my question:

[SomethingFishy]

Who's watching them?

[HipChick]

1. Aliens?

[SharonAnn]

24. Who will watch the watchers? Classic line from Juvenal, Roman poet.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase traditionally attributed to the Roman poet Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–8), which is literally translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Also sometimes rendered as "Who watches the watchmen?", the phrase has other idiomatic translations and adaptations such as "Who will watch the watch-guards?" In modern usage, it is frequently associated with the political philosophy of Plato and the problem of political corruption, but the original source has no known connection to Plato or political theory. The original context deals rather with the problem of ensuring marital fidelity. It has also been questioned whether the text of this particular passage is authentically part of Juvenal's Satires or is a later addition to the manuscript.

From Ask.com

[JaneyVee]

2. Judiciary Branch?

[indepat]

26. We can count on Scalia to ride herd over any wrongdoing - from the left

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Fortunately, some members of the press.

[markiv]

28. none in THIS country

oh sure, once the cat is already out of the bag

but notice the leaker didnt take it to an American media

reminds me of the ending of 3 days of the condor

[randome]

4. FISA panel of judges, Congress and the judge who approved the warrant.

Maybe that's not enough layers but I personally don't have a problem with that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

14. Is there any overview of the FISA court?

[randome]

18. Unknown but if there is, I'm sure some would be asking is there overview of the overviewers.

3 independent layers seems better than one single layer with 3 reviews by the same branch.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

21. But they are saying the FISA court is misusing a too broad interpretation of the FISA law.

If if has spread as precedent within that body, who reviews that? How does it get reined in?

[randome]

22. I suppose Congress could unapprove at any stage.

If they don't have enough information, they could demand it. This is why the GOP isn't going to make much hay out of this -both parties approve of this. That doesn't mean it's right, of course.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

23. One wonders if they knew and approved or were in the dark.

Can we assume they were all complicit and need to be removed en masse if we disapprove?

[randome]

25. Shit, fire all 535 of them on general principles! Wipe the slate clean!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

29. Hmm it's a thought! Have they all finally crossed the line together?

[sabrina 1]

36. When was the warrant issued? Before or after the fact?

[Autumn]

5. Not to worry. Congress is all over that shit.

The same Congress that can't govern their way out of a fucking brown paper bag with the 6% approval rating. The same Congress that spends every fucking minute of their time figuring out a way to lie to and fuck over the American people every way they can. That Congress. it's all fucking good.

[dkf]

7. The congress that gets lied to on a regular basis. It's a joke.

[Skidmore]

10. Congress created this mess. What do you think

Cheney had his band of merry men doing in the back rooms of the House while these pieces of legislation were being made? Or did the words just magically appear on paper one day after a sorcerer in a farrrr off kingdom uttered a spell?

[dkf]

13. Sensenbrenner said the FISA court is misusing the act. What overview does congress have over the

FISA court?

[sabrina 1]

37. What did Sensenbrenner have to say when Bush was caught doing this, which at that time was illegal?

I don't recall any outrage from Sensenbrenner when Bush got caught, but I could have missed it. I also find it hypocritical that Obama, who did express outrage back then, ended up voting for the modification to the bill to protect Bush and the Telecoms from prosecution.

So who has remained consistent in all of this? The only name I can think of right now is Wyden. There may be a few others, but he at least has been consistently warning against these abuses since they were first exposed.

[sabrina 1]

6. Whistle Blowers, but we all know what happens to them!

:afraid:

[MineralMan]

8. If you have any information worth revealing,

being afraid, or at least cautious, would be in order. Otherwise, not so much...

[SomethingFishy]

16. Any information worth revealing is going to be classified...

And anyone who would like to tell the American people what is being done to them, or being done in their name, has the case of Bradley Manning to warn them off.

[MineralMan]

20. Not my point at all.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Yup

[SomethingFishy]

12. Yep...

I'm supposed to feel "safe" because Congress and FISA are monitoring themselves?

The scary part is I'm sure someone would love to tell us how deep the rabbit hole really goes, but probably took one look at Bradley Manning and decided it wasn't worth it.

[JoePhilly]

32. Congress and FISA are not part of the same branch of government.

And neither is actually conducting the surveillance. So they can't be "monitoring themselves".

Again, there are 3 distinct branches of government. And each is playing its role as defined by the founders.

[SomethingFishy]

38. I know how the government works...

and you missed the point.

[dkf]

11. We need to empower the EFF and the ACLU.

I was watching senators from both parties talk about how they had debated all this and it's all good and all I could think was that there's no one who gives a damn about what we the people want.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

15. The Roman poet Juvenal asked "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

It's a very old question.

In this country, the answer is "The People do."

If we don't like what a government is doing, we can bloody well elect a different one.

[SomethingFishy]

17. LMAO... now that is funny...

You ever try to stop a runaway train?

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

19. Ha! Runaway trains have a tendency to stop themselves sooner or later, one way or another.

They all eventually become derailed, smash into something, or run out of fuel.

[markiv]

27. their corporate overlords? nt

[woodsprite]

30. The high security Hawtch-Hawtcher bee watcher.

“Oh, the jobs people work at! Out west near Hawtch-Hawtch there's a Hawtch-Hawtcher bee watcher, his job is to watch. Is to keep both his eyes on the lazy town bee, a bee that is watched will work harder you see. So he watched and he watched, but in spite of his watch that bee didn't work any harder not mawtch. So then somebody said "Our old bee-watching man just isn't bee watching as hard as he can, he ought to be watched by another Hawtch-Hawtcher! The thing that we need is a bee-watcher-watcher!". Well, the bee-watcher-watcher watched the bee-watcher. He didn't watch well so another Hawtch-Hawtcher had to come in as a watch-watcher-watcher! And now all the Hawtchers who live in Hawtch-Hawtch are watching on watch watcher watchering watch, watch watching the watcher who's watching that bee. You're not a Hawtch-Watcher you're lucky you see!”

― Dr. Seuss, Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are?

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1416292-did-i-ever-tell-you-how-lucky-you-are

[JoePhilly]

31. See, we have three branches of government.

In this case, the judicial and the legislative branches, had oversight of the executive branch's surveillance programs.

This is actually how the founding fathers structured it to work. No branch of our government gets to operate independent from the other two.

Now, I suppose we could all join the Tea Party and claim the government sucks and we should just starve it of all funds, and then drown it in a bath tub. And that would be better.

[sabrina 1]

33. So Bush was right after all? We were just being hysterical as right wingers claimed, when we were

so outraged after we found out that Bush was using the Telecoms to monitor the calls of their customers.

How on earth could we have been so wrong? My apologies to Bush and his surveillance team, they were only trying to keep us safe after all.

[JoePhilly]

34. Um, no. Bush was bypassing oversight by FISA and the Congress, Obama is not.

Bush was not in favor of the other branches of government having oversight of such programs. So you owe him no apology.

And just so you know, the FISA courts were created for EXACTLY this type of oversight by Jimmy Carter, in legislation proposed by Ted Kennedy.

So if you are upset, maybe you should be upset with them too.

Bush tried to avoid the FISA court. Obama has not.

Sad so many on DU seem unaware of this important fact.

[sabrina 1]

35. Actually you are not being accurate. Bush did exactly what is now legal. But at that time it was not

It became legal when Congress, realizing he was in trouble along with the Telecoms he was using to spy on the American, came to his rescue. The modified that law, retroactively, to make legal back far enough to cover his illegal activities, legal. Obama voted for that bill. After having opposed Bush's illegal, now legal, activities.

Iow, had Congress not modified the law to protect Bush and the Telecoms, what is happening now would be illegal.

It's sad that many DUers have such short memories, or maybe they always supported the destruction of our rights. I really don't know, but I remember when this sort of blanket surveillance by the government caused outrage among Democrats. Not so for some anymore, apparently. It's okay if we do it, but how will you feel when these same powers are in the hands of a Republican Administration? Unless you believe we will never again have a Republican administration.