Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "How our attempts to restrain the NSA failed long before Ed Snowden." Can I help it if they know I watch Japanese midget gangbang tentacle porn, "Snow White and the Seven Samurai"?   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 10
    More: Interesting, NSA, Senate Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden, FISA, Dianne Feinstein, intelligence assessment, closed sessions, markup  
•       •       •

423 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 10:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



10 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-21 10:45:19 AM  
Have we learned NOTHING from the movie "Sneakers"? NOTHING?

I miss River Phoenix.
 
2013-06-21 10:46:57 AM  
This gets more to the heart of what the scandal REALLY is in domestic spying.  Not what is illegal, but what is legal.

And duly passed by Congress, overseen by the legislative branch and executed by the Executive.
 
2013-06-21 10:53:18 AM  
There's six others?  I'm not big on sharing.
 
2013-06-21 10:59:00 AM  
What would it take for a sitting senator (or representative) such as Wyden to say "fark it" and hold a press conference to openly speak? I appreciate that Wyden's placed a hold on reauthorization, but I can't help but feel that he could have done what Snowden did. If he had (or does) what would be the consequences? The same?

//never!
//also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-wa r rant
 
2013-06-21 11:01:52 AM  
Yes, it tends to subvert the "democracy" part of a democratic republican government if you do things secretly.
 
2013-06-21 11:05:05 AM  

ipsofacto: reauthorization, but I can't help but feel that he could have done what Snowden did. If he had (or does) what would be the consequences? The same?


The fact that he didn't speak out publicly shows a lack of spine and integrity.

/The representatives from here in Texas are evil so I guess he is a step up.
 
2013-06-21 11:11:56 AM  

bluenovaman: The fact that he didn't speak out publicly shows a lack of spine and integrity.


In a visceral sense, I feel the same way. Although it's good to have those who object to these policies/laws on committee, if they are ultimately powerless/muted, this is what we get.

I wonder if there's any precedent for something like this- a sitting congressman facing prosecution for revealing classified info...
 
2013-06-21 11:30:41 AM  
Wyden is the best friend of privacy advocates. He's fighting using his credibility, rather than from the fringes.
 
2013-06-21 12:47:13 PM  

ipsofacto: //never!
//also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-wa r rant


This article basically supports what I think is really going on:  There is judicial oversight, and the NSA is dutifully subjecting itself to that oversight, but the latitude of the oversight is overly broad.

Not to say that the FISA court is, as some people claim, a "rubber stamp" in all cases of oversight (here's one counterexample), but that there are broad swathes of allowed surveillance that seems to overstep the 4th amendment.

I don't believe this is because the FISA court is "in on it"--more that the secrecy of these programs their sensitive nature, and the feared repercussions of insufficient intelligence (in deaths or political image) defaults to this sort of broadening of the scope of what is accepted.

This is the reason why actors like Snowden, regardless of their motivations, provide a valuable role--Without this information, the conversation over these programs is solely based on speculation and histrionics.
 
2013-06-21 01:38:39 PM  

Skleenar: ipsofacto: //never!
//also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-wa r rant

This article basically supports what I think is really going on:  There is judicial oversight, and the NSA is dutifully subjecting itself to that oversight, but the latitude of the oversight is overly broad.

Not to say that the FISA court is, as some people claim, a "rubber stamp" in all cases of oversight (here's one counterexample), but that there are broad swathes of allowed surveillance that seems to overstep the 4th amendment.

I don't believe this is because the FISA court is "in on it"--more that the secrecy of these programs their sensitive nature, and the feared repercussions of insufficient intelligence (in deaths or political image) defaults to this sort of broadening of the scope of what is accepted.

This is the reason why actors like Snowden, regardless of their motivations, provide a valuable role--Without this information, the conversation over these programs is solely based on speculation and histrionics.


This article in the Post, I think, makes some pretty valid points regarding the nature of these newly revealed documents.
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report