I will listen to Wyden and Udall.

[jazzimov]

Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter. I don’t agree with him 100% - hell, I don’t agree with ANYONE 100%, or even 90% for that matter. There are some things that I would like to criticize Obama about, but they would be taken out of context here. But, overall and considering what he is working with and still managed to accomplish, I support Obama.

But it is not blind support.

Therefore, I am willing to listen to criticism of Obama - as long as it is INFORMED criticism. I have researched the current NSA controversy, and I encourage others to do the same before jumping to conclusions. Too many are running around with their hair on fire making claims that are completely unsubstantiated. I would like a SERIOUS conversation, not one filled with emotional false claims.

I hated Bush because of provable actions - not “just because.”

That being said, I am willing to listen to Wyden. I’ve already heard DiFi’s reaction -she is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and has access to secret info that the rest of us do not. But Wyden is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

My first thought was “why didn’t he complain earlier?” He answered that, saying that he and Udall had tried but were bound by secretiveness. Or was that just a ploy? I would hope that if someone on that committee found something wrong that they would have options.

I am glad that Greenwald has agreed to testify. This is an “informal” investigation, but I doubt that Greenwald would have agreed to participate otherwise. I would much rather see him under oath, but I think that would scare him off. I don’t trust Greenwald, and I think he has a personal agenda. But his testimony will be very revealing. I won’t trust the MSM, because, after all, their agenda is clear - create ratings which = advertising $.

But one of the things that has attracted me to Wyden and Udall is that they object to the way the Laws have been INTERPRETED. I think we need a serious discussion about this.

Personally, I like personal freedom. But, I also like being able to go to the local mall without fear of dying.

Meanwhile, I still accept loyalty cards which track all of purchases, and I still click ACCEPT with reading the entire TOS agreement (unless I have reason to suspect the download site).

Have I created more questions than I supplied answers? Gawd, I hope so.

[Fumesucker]

1. Who does not have a personal agenda?

I don't think I've ever met anyone that didn't have an agenda, even if it was just having another beer.

You are eight times more likely to be killed at the mall by a cop than a terrorist.

[jazzimov]

11. I'll agree - everyone has a personal agenda

and WHY are you eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist?

Perhaps the anti-Terrorist efforts are successful?

Would you feel better if you were eight times more likely to be killed by a terrorist than a cop?

I'd rather not be killed by either, thank you.

[arely staircase]

20. it is sort of like a recent poll question

what's more important? the government protecting you from terrorism or protecting your privacy? that is a bullshit false dichotomy. I think both are important.

[Electric Monk]

2. re: "I also like being able to go to the local mall without fear of dying."

Talk about irrational. You're much more likely to die on your way to or from the mall in a traffic accident.

[jazzimov]

4. exactly my point.

In the current atmosphere, it is much more likely that I would die in a car crash.

What if it were more likely that I would be killed in the mall itself?

I am safe now, but what about the future?

[Recursion]

3. I defy you to find a DUer who thinks PATRIOT and FISA are "good" laws

But the solution to bad laws is getting Congress to pass better ones.

[jazzimov]

6. which PATRIOT ACT and FISA laws are you talking about?

Or are you just talking out of an emotional response without any rational info?

[Recursion]

7. The laws themselves, which set up classified courts to interpret them

It was a bad idea a decade ago, it's a bad idea now.

FISA per se is a good idea, because I don't think the President's power to surveil foreign targets should be unlimited like they were before FISA, but it needs a lot of improvement.

[jazzimov]

13. I don't think you understand any of them.

"It was a bad idea a decade ago"

NONE of the current laws were passed a "decade ago".

I may agree that there are problems with each of the existing laws, but I would prefer to discuss this with someone who actually understands the laws themselves.

In other words, educate yourself and then let's talk.

[Recursion]

14. PATRIOT was passed a decade ago

FISA was passed 3 and a half decades ago and amended 5 years ago. Don't be condescending, and I still don't see a point in your post.

[jazzimov]

25. WHICH acts? You are incorrect.

Please do some research and tell me WHICH items of the original PATRIOT ACT ( which I did not support) were reauthorized and which updates to the FISA laws were done recently.

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but there are so many people who CLAIM to know what's going on who actually don't. I would rather have a conversation with someone who isn't clueless and who actually understands the recent laws rather than just talking out of their ass.

And maybe there isn't a point - I'm just asking questions! RELEVANT questions!

[arely staircase]

18. I am all for intercepting foreign signal intel too, which is what PRISM does

Wyden agrees and says it is an important national security tool too - but needs more controls to make sure it isn't sucking domestic communications up too. He thinks the phone metadata sweeps should stop. I have always thought he is a reasonable man. I don't think he is being knee-jerk at all. Problem around these parts (not you) is binary thinking. I want the phone info collection stopped. I want the NSA to continue to monitor foreign intel sigs. I thinks Snowden has sold his country out. Life is complicated.

[jazzimov]

26. TY. "Life is complicated"

I agree that the primary problem is binary thinking.

There is no "black v white" or "evil v good" or "up v down" perspective. Between Black and White there are an infinite nuber of shades or grey. And that is not including the colors of the rainbow.

[frylock]

5. i'd like to take out the trash without fear of being attacked by chupacabras..

is it chupacabras, or is the plural chupacabra? in any case, what's being done to assuage my irrational fear?

[Recursion]

8. chupacabrae? (nt)

[jazzimov]

9. LOL! That's rather funny! Unfortunately

where I live I have to watch out for Copperheads.

I would suggest that you watch out for raccoons, unless you live in one of those areas where all vermin have been removed.

Remember, the only reason you enjoy such vermin-free areas is because someone else eradicated them first. Someone else made the area secure for you. I don't suppose you opposed them, did you?

[frylock]

36. rattlers here..

pacific dbacks and big fat reds. all up in my yard.

[arely staircase]

21. irrational?

now who is being naïve?

[Electric Monk]

23. You would consider a fear of chupacabrae to be rational and normal, then?

[arely staircase]

24. just keep whistling past the gaveyard.

ignore the chupacabra at your peril. You have been warned and are now on your own.

[frylock]

34. how many shopping malls have been attacked now?

go crawl under your bed.

[arely staircase]

35. I'm making a chupacabra joke, chill nt

[frylock]

37. not a joking matter..

don't even get me started on al Saquatch in Canadia.

[arely staircase]

38. :-) nt

[randome]

10. 'Informed criticism' is the key phrase in your post.

Until we know which aspects of the NSA need to be curtailed and which left alone, we need to stop bouncing around like bees in a bottle.

Evidence matters. Information matters. Then let the chips fall where they may.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[jazzimov]

15. Thank you!

[snappyturtle]

19. If evidence matters then we need to stop prosecuting and persecuting the

whistle blowers.....all of them. I haven't heard of a whistleblower yet that disclosed information without a lot of forethought. They seem to be very conscientious and their numbers are small. We need to pay attention before jumping to conclusions which chased Snowden away. He was right. For some reason we seem to confuse whistleblowers with spies which is odd in Snowden's case since he's the one pointing out the biggest spy network ever! imho

[randome]

32. Just because Snowden said something does not mean it is true.

A whistleblower doesn't run to China and then Russia after saying "I am not here to hide from justice."

You've already jumped to the conclusion that he was right when the only thing he 'proved' was copies of phone metadata are being made. Something that was already known.

You're right, it is very odd that Snowden claims to be against spying yet revealed national security information to Chinese journalists and sent information to Der Spiegel that they said was dangerous if not redacted.

Der Spiegel acted responsibly, not Snowden.

Snowden says he "saw things" but he won't ever say what he saw.

The man has a screw loose or something. His wild claims of 24/7 Internet spying should not be taken at face value without supporting evidence. And if he shows supporting evidence, I will have no problem supporting him.

Jazzimov is right. We should never act in a knee-jerk fashion but always responsibly and armed with information, not fears. That, to me, is what is supposed to separate us from the Conservatives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

40. You can't have it both ways. First you attack him for saying too much (Der Speigel)

and a couple of sentences later pounce that he doesn't tell us what he saw or shows supporting evidence. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't....is that it?

It isn't just Snowden's word now that we're going on. Many of the former whistleblowers have come out again because of the evidence (or to you maybe 'wild claims') Snowden has. Tice is particularly interesting.

Obviously the aggressiveness of the administration to go after Morales, to not tame down congressional accusations of labels such as traitor and threaten other countries thinking of granting Snowden asylum, is telling. How pathetic that the gov't wrote Russia to assure them it won't seek the death penalty. Talk about knee jerk reactions.

Snowden is not hiding from justice; he is hiding to preserve his life and the info he has. If he thought he would have received justice he wouldn't have left in the first place. Justice? He doesn't even garner civility: his character, his girlfriend, and now today even Putin's character have been attacked here on DU in feeble ways to change the subject. We're doing everything but looking at what the NSA has done in light of the Fourth Amendment. Everytime attempts were made to discuss privacy rights we were interrupted with character flaws and things like too many boxes in Snowden's garage.

Snowden is trying to protect our constitutional rights more than anyone else I can think of. He's given up his life as he knew it. I will stand by him and supporting people like Wyden, Udall, Amash, Conyers, the former whistleblowers and now Fein....and the 207 others who voted for the Amash amendment.

I think it's a sad state of affairs that Snowden couldn't stay here and safely reveal his discoveries with his due process guaranteed.

[jazzimov]

41. Thank you for helping me make my point.

I find it interesting that so many of the "whistle-blowers" are speaking out against policies that were previous to the 2008 that found them to be illegal.

I think Snowden was a traitor and deserves to be prosecuted.

However, I think that Snowden's actions have provided an opportunity to discuss issues that wouldn't have been possible without Snowden's actions.

I still think that Snowen is a traitor and must be prosecuted as such.

I'm sorry if that seems incompatible to you.

[snappyturtle]

43. Please translate this sentence so it makes sense:

I find it interesting that so many of the "whistle-blowers" are speaking out against policies that were previous to the 2008 that found them to be illegal.

What's illegal? The whistleblowers....notice no parentheses...as they were and still are whistleblowers; the policies? what???

On one hand you're thankful for the discussion that has arisen from Snowden's actions. (I am presuming you're happy so that the gov't spying can be eliminated except on an individual basis when a suspicion and evidence can garner a warrant.)

On the other hand, Snowden who is trying to protect your privacy rights under the constitution should be prosecuted for treason.I guess your allegiance is to the gov't (TPTB) rather than the constitution. Well, you're working against your best interests. But, then again, if we throw the book at Snowden and subsequently in prison to be forgotten and nothing proceeds to rein in the spying on citizens (that has all ready started with the failure of the Amash amendment), you'll feel safe strolling your local shopping mall. That's pathetic as this spying has nothing to do with your safety.

[randome]

44. Tice last worked for the NSA in 2005.

And every year he comes out with new allegations. That doesn't sound very credible to me.

The information Snowden sent Der Spiegel had nothing to do with spying. It was details on how the NSA does its job.

Snowden's information about spying has been shown to be either mistaken or flat-out wrong. Or, in the case of the metadata, something that's been done with legal warrants for a number of years and was already known.

Oh, sure, Snowden 'gave up his life'. You notice how he never mentions his fiance or his parents? The man has a screw loose if he ran to Russia simply to reveal a copy of a legal warrant and some PowerPoint slides. He's ruined his life and the lives of others and for what?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

45. Nevermind:

1) I never said anything about what Snowden disclosed to Der Spiegel.

2) Nevermind that I don't use your credibility meter in regard to Mr. Tice.
Obviously, if he isn't credible to you, he isn't. Delude yourself.

3) The Fisa court sees few warrants it doesn't approve....hundreds. Roberts
appoints the judges (10repubs, 1 dem) and the results? Secret. It's a sham.
Nevermind the NSA is sifting through pre-emptive data that they've twisted
arms to get.

4) Last paragraph: If Snowden only revealed a legal warrant and some Power Point
slides, what's your problem? Treason? You don't like Snowden to begin with so
why do you care at all the status of his life? If he were to bring up his girlfriend
and parents he'd be whining.

Nevermind the Fourth Amendment.....which is the real point.

[arely staircase]

22. Here here nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. with the steady stream of terrorist attack in malls all across America in the early and mid 90's

it is a legitimate concern - we must not let our guard down now

[Bluenorthwest]

16. If you wondered why Wyden did not 'complain' eariler, you were not paying attention

at all. Here he is in 2011 when the Patriot Act was up for renewal.

This is from 2005 regarding the 2006 vote:
Monday, December 5, 2005

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today announced his intention to vote against and support efforts to filibuster the conference report reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act, citing concerns about numerous provisions that could compromise Americans' privacy rights that would be made permanent under the legislation. Specifically, Wyden announced his intention today to oppose the legislation because it does not include sunsets for controversial powers and diminishes congressional oversight over the government's use of these powers. "The current version of the report strikes the wrong balance between security and civil liberties and leaves Congress with inadequate oversight," said Wyden. "Just as troubling is the inclusion of new language that will make it much more difficult for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves from possible Patriot Act abuses. These unjustified changes do not make the Patriot Act a more effective tool for fighting terrorism and in fact, make it more susceptible to abuse. I will vote against the current version of the legislation and support efforts to block its passage."
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-to-oppose-patriot-act-renewal

Do you need more? 2006 Wyden did vote no. Senator Obama voted Yes.

So when you say 'why didn't he complain sooner' I have to assume you simply paid no attention. Apathy is a bad thing. Calling those who are paying attention 'hair on fire' over and over again does not explain why you thought this was some new issue for Wyden. He's my Senator. A DUer today called him an opportunist because he thought this was a new issue for Wyden, as you did. The uninformed claiming other have 'hair on fire' is getting to be hard to deal with politely.

[jazzimov]

30. I addressed that.

Thank you for agreeing and kicking my post!

[arely staircase]

17. recommended

I trust Sen. Wyden. He says the metadata sweeps should be eliminated. He also says PRISM is an important program, but needs more oversight to make sure domestic e-mails aren't getting swept up in it. I love this president and wish I could vote for him again. But I'm not waiting on any president to willingly give up executive power.

arely staircase

[99th_Monkey]

27. "I would hope that if someone on that committee found something wrong that they would have options.

"I would hope that if someone on that committee found something wrong that they would have options."

Not so much actually. As I understand it, he was effectively gagged, under threat of serious criminal
prosecution & penalties, possibly prison. (see Bradley Manning, Snowden, et. al.).

Now I can still ask the question though, "why didn't Wyden come forward sooner?", to which the answer
is a bit more obvious: i.e. that he'd be subject to prosecution, and possibly jail.

This of course takes all the mystery out of it, but still.

[sabrina 1]

28. I appreciate your OP, so thank you for a rational approach to a very serious issue.

Regarding Wyden, he has been a longtime voice against the growing surveillance state that has sprung up since 9/11 and during the Bush years, often a lonely voice. He has been warning the people for as long as I can remember about the way 'the law (the Patriot Act) is being used.

It IS true that those on the Intelligence Committee are not free to speak publicly about what they know. However he has tried to do so without violating any rules. And more recently he has asked that the members be released from the secrecy rule because he believes that the American people have a right to know what he knows.

Wyden has a long history of defending our rights, and during the Bush years that took a lot of courage. I have been listening to him for years now and I believe he is really concerned about our rights.

[jazzimov]

31. TY!

You and I may be on opposite sides of this issue, or we could be on the same side.

The one thing I have learned from your post is that your opinion is based on reality, and not just some random hair-on-fire thought.

Of course, I'll have forgotten you by then!

sabrina 1 - smart person who likes facts. Maybe I'll remember that!

[truebluegreen]

29. Wyden and Udall have both been waving their arms for years,

saying that the secret interpretations of the law were a problem, pushing for non-renewal of the PATRIOT Act, complaining that they could not say more, etc.

Truth, not a ploy.

[jazzimov]

33. I hope that this is brought up

as a real issue.

Unfortunately, it could be ruled as irrelevant (even though it is, technically, although not otherwise). Which means the warrant itself needs to be broad.

[ColumbusLib]

39. Re: likelihood of being killed at the mall

Yet here in the USA, we're at far greater risk of being killed by what we put on our dinner plate...

[jazzimov]

42. I find it interesting that I pulled an example of

going to the mall out of my butt....

And yet so many people are so focused on my example of "the mall" rather than the core point of the post.

Interesting...