U.S. Government spying on entire U.S., to nobody's surprise

[Hydrosun]

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, he could have meant that it is unfortunate that there are so many road deaths, not that it is unfortunate that more people aren't killed by terrorism.

Yeah, no benifit of the doubt for a Harvard Law grad., and an ON POINT politico. He meant exactly what he said. It is unfortunate that more AmeriKans aren't killed by terrorists than are killed in car wrecks.

 

[Harry Gypsna]

Yeah, no benifit of the doubt for a Harvard Law grad., and an ON POINT politico. He meant exactly what he said. It is unfortunate that more AmeriKans aren't killed by terrorists than are killed in car wrecks.

As I said, it can be interpreted both ways, but to anyone looking at it rationally, and not through "Obama evil" goggles, it is pretty obvious what was meant.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Harry mate have you never heard of the heart speaking it's true desires unconsciously? specially as you say in a interview situation. although if you believe those questions were not given to the pres in advance i have a bridge for sale you might be interested in as they say. LOL.

he may have meant to say what you heard him say, but what he actually let out was what he really wanted, more fear, less resistance and discussion and people to sit down and shut up about all this. ie terror should be taken more seriously by the American people. how dare they argue about living their lives in a fishbowl.

there again maybe it was an honest mistake eh? i do remember bush making some of those revealing comments too back in his reign. maybe they misspoke, or maybe the truth slipped out.

 

[bentom187]

it is rather funny watching the prez and media puppets try to reinforce their lies.if you don't believe them well its obvious your alqueada. but the government funds alqueada now so im not sure where we would fall.

I mean isn't this the conclusions a 6 yr old would draw(see video).yes their are questions to be answered like why a untouched building collapsed.it belonged to a group of buildings owned by the same guy who collects insurance money to this day on it.yet no other skyscrapers seemingly without cause collapse in NY.i guess we'll leave that one in meta-physics land for another day.
oh and don't for a second think its proper to think you live in a free country,or that you are sovereign to government and rules you never consented too.



Rachel Maddow Attempts to Connect 911 Truth to Violence, Al Qaeda
[YOUTUBEIF]oLX9aLDwoh0[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Hydrosun]

As I said, it can be interpreted both ways, but to anyone looking at it rationally, and not through "Obama evil" goggles, it is pretty obvious what was meant.

If it were obvious and he wanted to reduce deaths of Americans, wouldn't he have announced his new auto / highway safety program? Instead he announced a plan to restructure home mortgage finance. And he sought to justify domestic spying.

It is unfortunate certainly, but he was not seeking to lower deaths of Americans, just get us to stop complaining about being spied on.

 

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDFIVVmXE-g

Published on Jul 16, 2013


Tensions are high as NSA leaker Edward Snowden officially submitted application for temporary asylum in Russia on Tuesday. After Russian and international human rights advocates and lawyers met with Snowden at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on Friday, the US said it was disappointed in Russia for considering the whistleblowers asylum. During a daily press briefing State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki was given a thorough grilling on the Snowden affair by journalists, including AP's Matthew Lee and CNN's Elise Labott and was left lost for words at almost every turn.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

 

[bentom187]

welcome to the USSA.

Radley Balko on the Militarization of Police
[YOUTUBEIF]2DgCsDqtYkA[/YOUTUBEIF]

Indianapolis "Officer of the Year" Attacks Man For Doing Nothing!
[YOUTUBEIF]GWhVOtMWO4o[/YOUTUBEIF]

Phoenix Police Helicopter responds to a 1&4 Amendment Test while
[YOUTUBEIF]k_aEqzE8Jac[/YOUTUBEIF]

Woman Police Officer Abuse - LAPD Officer USA
[YOUTUBEIF]Is_GQRBSUXM[/YOUTUBEIF]

Police - Home Invasion - Police State
Welcome to the our dystopian reality. There's no backtracking.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=043_1375899230#SAGsDL4YjcdyKJ6f.99
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=043_1375899230

 

[bentom187]

NSA head says agency working to reduce leaks by replacing people with machines

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...replacing-people-with-machines/#ixzz2bTyeKbw1

National Security Agency director General Keith Alexander defended the controversial programs disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and said Thursday his agency was taking steps to prevent future leaks by working to reducing the number of system administrators—the same position Snowden held—by 90 percent.

He also said the surveillance programs had been “grossly mischaracterized by the press,” while staring directly at media assembled at Fordham University for a keynote panel featuring the NSA chief, CIA director John Brennan and FBI director Robert Mueller on the final day of the International Conference on Cyber Security.

"No one has knowingly or willfully disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacies,'' he added.

Alexander said the agency was transitioning to a cloud structure that would rely on machines instead of people to transfer secure data.

“What we’ve done is put people in loops of transferring data and securing networks—doing what machines are probably better at doing,” Alexander said.

He said the plan to transition to a cloud system “cuts down number of system administrators. That would address vulnerabilities. It would also address the number of system administrators we have, not fast enough, but we plan to reduce the number of system administrators by 90 percent to make networks more defensible and secure.

“We trust people with data. At the end of the day it’s all about trust. If they misuse that trust, they can cause huge damage,” he said.

“At the end of the day it’s about people and trust and I think we can get that almost perfect but we can’t solve that issue.”

CIA chief Brennan added, “There have been some recent lessons learned—to make that technical opportunity less and less available.”

Another question submitted in advance by conference attendees asked the three top intelligence officials if average Americans could still presume to have any privacy.

“Too often people try to pitch privacy against national security,” Brennan said. “We are trying to ensure that we optimize national security and freedoms and liberties that make this country great. I think privacy is an important foundation of this country.”

Alexander also referred back to President Obama’s remarks to Jay Leno Wednesday night.

“This isn’t a domestic spying program. It’s a tool to find terrorists. I think the country is well serviced by courts and congress,” the NSA chief said in defense of his agency’s surveillance programs.

FBI director Mueller also said privacy and national security were not mutually exclusive.

“You do not want to go down in history as having resolved that particular threat by trampling on the rights of the constitution, that doesn't make good press,” he said.

"No one has knowingly or willfully disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacies,''

YES YOU HAVE !


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“Too often people try to pitch privacy against national security,” Brennan said. “We are trying to ensure that we optimize national security and freedoms and liberties that make this country great. I think privacy is an important foundation of this country.”

"balance" does it say balance anywhere in the constitution? no because its the law and you either follow it or break it.its not arbitrary to political wants and needs of a few privileged sociopaths.It enumerates what you MAY NOT DO.

“You do not want to go down in history as having resolved that particular threat by trampling on the rights of the constitution, that doesn't make good press,”

good press is what you are worried about? the media pundit's you own ? but not the law because you break it when you want?
and FYI general ,the constitution is the law and rules that people with oaths to it are supposed to adhere to it under penalty of imprisonment or death, perhaps today we could just ask that you acquiesce from you position or face those penalties we are more civilized than you.

 

[backyardbogfan]

How do people like that live with themselves?

How do people like that live with themselves?

I don't understand how any police official could look the other way when you break fundamental laws to justify taking low level criminals off the street while looking the other way for rich and powerful. When caught dirty cops are never punished like someone just growing a plant.
Case and point is dirty cops spread throughout the SF East Bay working with leaders of Contra Costa County Drug task force setting people up for Dirty DUIs and stealing meth from dealers and storage reselling it their favored crooks.

 

[bentom187]

SPREAD.....

The Next Terrorist Attack - What The Mainstream Media Isn't Telling
[YOUTUBEIF]XQFfhqUBacg[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[dagnabit]

Yeah, no benifit of the doubt for a Harvard Law grad., and an ON POINT politico. He meant exactly what he said. It is unfortunate that more AmeriKans aren't killed by terrorists than are killed in car wrecks.

so a havard grad and an on point politico would choose to outright say he wishes more americans would be killed in terror attacks?

that makes a lot of sense...

more likely a poorly worded turn of phrase and im pretty far from a big O supporter.
it seems to me for the reasons people are listing for the contrary he would never intentionally pine for the deaths of americans

 

[frito bandito]

so a havard grad and an on point politico would choose to outright say he wishes more americans would be killed in terror attacks?

Who said anything about "choice"? It came from his subconscious mind, just like someone already pointed out. He didn't say it for NO reason. There was a chain of thoughts which occurred in his mind and which DID result in him saying "unfortunately." And the word "unfortunately" DOES have a certain meaning, which DOES cause the phrase to have a certain meaning. Obama is not superhuman; he's a flawed piece of shit, and this is called a Freudian slip.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Who said anything about "choice"? It came from his subconscious mind, just like someone already pointed out. He didn't say it for NO reason. There was a chain of thoughts which occurred in his mind and which DID result in him saying "unfortunately." And the word "unfortunately" DOES have a certain meaning, which DOES cause the phrase to have a certain meaning. Obama is not superhuman; he's a flawed piece of shit, and this is called a Freudian slip.

thats the phrase i was looking for; it was a Freudian slip. same as when bush said something like the US is causing terror when he wanted to say fighting terror. i forget the exact phrase he used, but it seemed too Freudian, specially considering the rest of his agenda.

 

[dagnabit]

teleprompters typically dont have "Freudian slips"

 

[vta]

Domestic spying is dangerous to freedom

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

How is it that the government can charge Edward Snowden with espionage for telling a journalist that the feds have been spying on all Americans and many of our allies, but the NSA itself, in a public relations campaign intended to win support for its lawlessness, can reveal secrets and do so with impunity? That question goes to the heart of the rule of law in a free society.

Since Snowden’s June 6th revelations about massive NSA spying, we have learned that all Americans who communicate via telephone or the Internet (who doesn’t?) have had all of their communications swept up by the federal government for two-plus years.

The government initially claimed that the NSA has gathered only telephone numbers and billing data. Now we know that the NSA has captured and stored the content of trillions of telephone conversations, texts and emails, and can access that content at the press of a few computer keys.

All of this happened in the dark, with the permission of President Obama, with the knowledge and consent of fewer than 20 members of Congress who were forbidden from doing anything about it by the laws they themselves had written, and based on secret legal arguments accepted by a secret court that keeps its records secret even from the judges who sit on the court.

This massive spying -- metadata gathering, as the NSA calls it -- was also done notwithstanding statements NSA officials made in public under oath and in secret classified briefings to Congress, which effectively denied it.

The denials were in one case admitted to -- “least untruthful,” as the director of national intelligence later called his own testimony. Then, when even members of Congress who usually support a muscular national security apparatus realized that they, too, had been lied to by the NSA, the NSA responded with its own leaks.

It has leaked, for example, that as a consequence of its spying it has prevented at least 50 foreign-originated plots from harming Americans.

It eventually backed off that number and declined to reveal with specificity what it independently learned and how that knowledge foiled the plots. But we do know that its colleagues in the FBI were participants in many of those plots, which means they weren’t real plots at all -- just government stings going after dopes and dupes.

Last week, the NSA leaked that it captured actionable intelligence of grave and imminent danger to our embassies in the Middle East. The implication it wants you to draw here is that because it caught Al Qaeda operatives talking in code in Yemen about deadly deeds they plan to perpetrate in the Arabian Peninsula, somehow the NSA's spying on 300 million innocent Americans is constitutional, lawful, effective and therefore worth the loss of freedom.

Earlier this week, we learned that other federal agencies of alphabet nomenclature -- the DHS, the DoJ, the DoD, the DEA, the CIA, the IRS, the FBI -- all want access to the NSA’s database, and it has shared some of it with most of them.

Also this week, former DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) agents, claiming this has been going on for at least a decade, acknowledged that the DEA regularly receives raw data from the NSA and uses that data to commence criminal investigations.

Down the slippery slope we go.

The whole NSA spying apparatus was sold to Congress as a limited mechanism for combating foreign terrorists. How putting the intimate thoughts of all Americans who use telephones and the Internet under the federal microscope helps to fight foreign terrorists has never been explained in a public court -- only in a secret one. But using this extra-constitutional means to fight crime brings us closer to a Soviet-style and value-free police state.

The Constitution intentionally has placed values in the path of law enforcement and national security so as to maintain our natural rights.

Those values are generally articulated throughout the Constitution and specifically addressed in the Fourth Amendment.

The linchpin of those values is the natural right to be left alone. All persons -- even bad guys -- have that inalienable right, and the government may only invade that right when it can identify a bad guy and articulate the probable cause it has to believe he is committing criminal acts.

The rest of us -- those for whom there is no probable cause of criminal acts -- retain that right, and it cannot be taken away from us by the supine acquiescence of Congress or an unnamed judge in a secret court. That constitutional requirement -- and that requirement alone -- has kept Americans free from Soviet-style persecutions.

Now comes Obama, who is quarterbacking the most massive end run around the Constitution in modern times by invading everyone’s right to be left alone in the name of national security, but in reality for any governmental purpose the government wishes. And for the unfortunate people whose criminal prosecutions have commenced from the NSA’s supposedly anti-terror spying, the feds are refusing to reveal to lawyers what the source of the negative information against them was. That, of course, violates the constitutionally protected right to confront all of one’s accusers, especially those who have been paid for their accusations.

What’s going on here?

It is painfully obvious that the government is not troubled by its own violation of the Constitution. The people in the government who have done this are far more concerned with their retention of power than they are with protecting our personal liberties. That explains their perverse view that when Snowden frustrates them with a whistle-blowing leak, he can be prosecuted, but when they rebut him with their own leaks, they are to be lauded. That is not the rule of law in a free society.

What will the NSA spies seek next? Our passwords? We already know the answer to that one. They asked for them last week.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”

 

[BudToaster]

What will the NSA spies seek next? Our passwords? We already know the answer to that one. They asked for them last week.

they only asked for passwords to perpetuate the fiction that passwords make encryption secure ... well, ok, maybe if you have a quantum encryption device.

i'll bet every hacker in the world is taking aim at the nsa's cloud storage. maybe said cloud storage is just a honey pot to round up the hackers ... hmmmm.

 

[HempKat]

"The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident, unfortunately."

Unfortunately???

Yes, unfortunate that the odds of dying in a car accident are so high. Fortunate would be if he could say the odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack is lower then being struck by lightning.

Besides if he said it in any way that it could be believed he yearned for the deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists, the opposition would be all over it. Headlines would be all over the place "Obama wishes more Americans to be killed by Terrorists!"

I mean the fact that nobody in the Republican party took it that way and got on air to say "It's deplorable that the President wishes more Americans were killed by terrorists" is a pretty strong indicator that it wasn't meant that way.

I also find it rather interesting that people who have no problem calling Obama an idiot are so quick to point to his level of education as proof he couldn't have possibly misspoke. Any other time those same people would be totally comfortable with suggesting he's so stupid he can't even tie his own shoe laces.

I also find it amusing that so many are trying to make this NSA thing out as being all Obama's baby. These things and the direction this country is going is has been in the works for decades now. When you sit there and say "IT's all Obama's fault" or "All Bush's fault" or "All *insert most any modern day President's name here* fault" you are doing exactly what "They" want you to do, blaming and getting mad at the scapegoat "They" provided you with.

 

[gaiusmarius]

it's true, they are just puppets, non of them seem to be better or worse then each other, they are/were all compromised by the puppet masters. it's silly to get bogged down on this strange turn of phrase, i agree that he didnt mean it the way it sounded. he obviously miss spoke. any more then that is speculation.

whats not speculation is that he is in there defending these practices and claiming the continued necessity spying and storing everyone's communications and all the rest of it. so at this time in this place he becomes the public face of these horrendous police state practices. it's been pointed out in this thread alone a few times that it's not about whether he's a dem pres or a rep pres, he is the pres of this time in history with these technological capacities. anyone who thinks a rep would be acting any differently is still not getting it. they'd be justifying it with slightly different terminology, but they'd be justifying it just the same.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Yes, unfortunate that the odds of dying in a car accident are so high. Fortunate would be if he could say the odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack is lower then being struck by lightning.

Besides if he said it in any way that it could be believed he yearned for the deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists, the opposition would be all over it. Headlines would be all over the place "Obama wishes more Americans to be killed by Terrorists!"

I mean the fact that nobody in the Republican party took it that way and got on air to say "It's deplorable that the President wishes more Americans were killed by terrorists" is a pretty strong indicator that it wasn't meant that way.

I also find it rather interesting that people who have no problem calling Obama an idiot are so quick to point to his level of education as proof he couldn't have possibly misspoke. Any other time those same people would be totally comfortable with suggesting he's so stupid he can't even tie his own shoe laces.

I also find it amusing that so many are trying to make this NSA thing out as being all Obama's baby. These things and the direction this country is going is has been in the works for decades now. When you sit there and say "IT's all Obama's fault" or "All Bush's fault" or "All *insert most any modern day President's name here* fault" you are doing exactly what "They" want you to do, blaming and getting mad at the scapegoat "They" provided you with.

well bush signed the patriot act right? so we can fault him for that? or is that not his fault?

obama signed multiple extensions of the patriot act and the new detention without trial ndda or something. so again, it's not unjust to blame those guys for their parts in making this extreme level of spying and data retention come to be.

but yes there was older spying programs too, even echelon was incredibly invasive for it's time, but there at least you had it working with key words, it didnt just willy nilly record and save everything from everyone. so yeah it was a shitty beginning, it was maybe the camels nose under the tent, but still nothing compared to what's happening now.

 

[bentom187]

Yes, unfortunate that the odds of dying in a car accident are so high. Fortunate would be if he could say the odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack is lower then being struck by lightning.

so basicly he declines to address the elephant in the room wich is the government causes these attacks.


Beside car accidents which is a possibility when you voluntarily buy a car and get a license. terror attacks are the pure workings of our government and its unaccountability,in which we are caught in the middle,The CIA created al-queada and funds them to this day, if that is not just pure distain for the american people and human life in general I don't know what is.he is our commander and chief of the military so he sends people to die fighting something he supports. also its sort of our own fault for believing them all the time.
if this is not a outrage and people wont get mad until its them or their family member then there is no chance for a future,its going to be status quo until the collapse.


lets address one lie as a example, economic recovery , I just have one question how?

father of modern economic theory and justifier of national socialism (Nazi's).....- John Maynard Keynes

But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.

what he left out was that in the meantime we are slaves keeping the credit of the elite good, even though the credit rating is based on the ability of the elite to rob the time energy and substance of the slave class(tax). so as long as they can continue to rob us they can live at our expense and perhaps we might make it one day to their level of extravagance.but being robbed all the time means there is not a chance in hell.

George Carlin ~ The American Dream
[YOUTUBEIF]acLW1vFO-2Q[/YOUTUBEIF]

Is taxation theft?
[YOUTUBEIF]7XebGuqD5R0[/YOUTUBEIF]

charity is different because you wont go to jail if you dont have the money to give.

this is what happens when you play god, and promise social utopia through taxation with scarce resources, everyone is equally poor,well almost everyone.if you are a political supporter and happen to own a big corporation and like corporate bailouts and loans with zero intrest, then you will be just fine because you wont pay taxes either or you will get it all back in your returns and people will be forced to buy your products via regulatory capture which means not allowing the poor to compete with you.

joke about the brutal and arbitrary nature of the Keynesians on the simpsons!
http://vimeo.com/57364562