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

[Jericho Mile]

good reply JM, seems i misinterpreted some of your more cryptic posts.

about stones documentary, it's actually using archived recordings of the people it's talking about and official recently unclassified documents gained through foia requests. while i agree that you can't take his version as gospel either it does make one think when you compare it with what you learn in school and what is considered to be the truth by the main stream.

in the end spreading this information, now that it's coming to a wider audience is a good step. the more people that question, the better. there is nothing that will wake people up better then seeing their pres telling 1 lie after another and being exposed lie for lie. as greenwald publishes another nsa document contradicting the latest lie. seems to me this situation is new in that way. it's getting harder and harder to keep people misinformed by mainstream propaganda. people can find the other side of the story nowadays.

yes history does repeat it's self thats why it's so interesting, historically speaking a lot of the things the US empire is doing now are exactly the same as what the romans were doing towards the end of their empire. time will tell what will be next, we are living in interesting times that's for sure.

you are a good dude....rational. That I can respect. I appreciate your approach.

 

[bentom187]

ok this is how this thread is going to get binned. pointless back and forth. lets make this constructive because the law is relevant to everyone.

here is a opportunity to learn what privileges and rights are, and the difference from the perspective of the actual law.


Michael Badnarik: Rattling the Sheriffs' Cages About the Constitution[YOUTUBEIF]912IS3dpC3Y[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[trichrider]

Guardian says Britain forced it to destroy Snowden material

Guardian says Britain forced it to destroy Snowden material

let's put on some tea...

Guardian says Britain forced it to destroy Snowden material

(Reuters) - The Guardian, a major outlet for revelations based on leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, says the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed the classified documents or handed them back to British authorities.

more at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130820

 

[Red Fang]

page 43 is as far as I got, but as far as I saw there, I agree with gauismarius. and jm, what are you talking about? Maybe you live the perfect life, but I assure you not everyone who lives in a "first world" nation lives a first world life. I have experienced that for decades and it is no fun especially when you endure the scorn and narrow-mindedness of those who have more and look down on you for how you dress or other trivial things, not the strength or lack thereof of your character or other things that matter. I know those in poor countries have it far worse. In any case, it should not be tolerated and we must all find a way to change it. help me and I will gladly fight the good fight! Regardless, I am sick of enduring a state that is all too close to that book 1984. We need to hit the reset button to pre-2001, or the 70's with the spirit of the 60's or whatever but we need to quit tolerating conservatives and the totalitarism they create in their wake and even the so-called liberals like Obama that do the same. We do not need security cameras everywhere, pigs lurking about undercover and otherwise, and internet spying. We need what we are supposed to stand for at our very core, FREEDOM, something we seem to have forgotten the definition of!

 

[bentom187]

let's put on some tea...

Guardian says Britain forced it to destroy Snowden material

(Reuters) - The Guardian, a major outlet for revelations based on leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, says the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed the classified documents or handed them back to British authorities.

more at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130820

this guy is awesome.

"I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England, too. I have many documents on England's spy system," Greenwald, speaking in Portuguese, told reporters at Rio de Janeiro's airport where he met Miranda upon his return to Brazil."

 

[idiit]

when humans deny their/our capability to manifest they have castrated themselves/us.

even bugs can manifest ( hives, food storage).

one of my life lessons has been "paths, footsteps, destinations".

the surveillance state status quo is quickly going in a very negative direction.

if we don't step up and take action now we will by default impose harm on ourselves and future generations.

i believe in opposing perspectives being necessary for intelligent discussion but at a certain point in time in the situation there is a need to act. that time is now.

the first giant baby step is to awaken the masses to the dire situation we are in. this thread is doing an excellent job on this aspect.

this shit is global and the solution will start local (like this thread in a canna-community) and merge with other ground-swell movements into a global uprising against the cabal.

if certain individuals choose to not participate that is their free will choice.

 

[bentom187]

Justin Amash hints at widening dissent in Congress against NSA spying


GRAND RAPIDS, MI — U.S. Rep. Justin Amash hinted Sunday that lawmakers who voted against his push to defund federal phone records snooping likely will about-face if the matter comes up for future votes.

Appearing on CNN program State Of the Union, Amash, R-Cascade Township, said he's heard from colleagues who regret not supporting his proposed amendment last month to gut funding for National Security Agency spying.

"I've certainly heard from a number of my colleagues, directly and through the media, that they feel differently about the amendment now, that if they had a second chance, yeah, they might have voted yes on it," Amash said.

The U.S. House last month narrowly defeated Amash's proposal in a closely watched vote viewed as a barometer for congressional approval for NSA metadata trawling brought to light earlier this summer.

The so-called Amash Amendment failed 217-205, after a push by the White House, GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress and intelligence officials to kill it off.

Whether the closeness of the final tally meant a win for Amash in terms of publicity for his fight or merely narrow defeat has been up for debate.

During Sunday's brief interview, Amash said he was "hopeful" that his bipartisan coalition of lawmakers would be able to gut or at least diminish the spying programs in future votes.

He noted that the last vote was an attempt to amend an appropriations bill — in and of itself a different beast — and that future pushes might look dissimilar to that.

"This was an amendment to an appropriations bill, so it had to be written in a very particular way," Amash said, "and I'm hopeful we'll have a way to amend some kind of policy legislation in the future."

Votes appear likely this fall after promises made by some lawmakers during debate on Amash's failed amendment last month.

Fellow Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, vowed during his remarks against the proposal that his House Intelligence Committee would eye more privacy safeguards.

Amash and others, including Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, have vowed to continue prodding congressional top brass and others to reel in the spying programs.

Recently, Amash accused Rogers and other House intel panel leaders of stifling a memo that laid out in basic detail the NSA spying programs ahead of a key vote to renew the Patriot Act in 2011.

"We were kept in the dark," Amash contended during a town hall meeting last week in Lowell Township.

Intel committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen hit back against those claims last week.

Phalen said the accusation creates a sideshow "to give the false impression that Congress was denied information. That is not the case."

"Because the letter by itself did not fully explain the programs, the Committee offered classified briefings, open to all Members of Congress, that not only covered all of the material in the letter but also provided much more detail in an interactive format with briefers available to fully answer any Members’ questions," Phalen said.

Amash has called those claims disingenuous, alleging that House leaders deny the existence of such programs if questions are not tailored to get at the minutiae of each.

Video of Amash's CNN appearance follows:
sorry its at the site.

 

[frito bandito]

I think the UK "authorities" made a terrible mistake in hitting the Guardian! What did they accomplish....nothing! They destroyed company property and did nothing to destroy the information or prevent its release. All they did was piss off Greenwald and everyone else and set back their own cause now that they have UK lawmakers being outraged over these goings-on.

 

[BudToaster]

to defund federal phone records snooping

well, that's a wasted effort ... should be stopping record collection, which is so cheap, it could probably be funded from the vending machine profits.

 

[bentom187]

well, that's a wasted effort ... should be stopping record collection, which is so cheap, it could probably be funded from the vending machine profits.

yes I agree, about there should be no spying. but they cant pay the electric bill, if they have no FED credit. they would have had to go old school.

It almost worked ......

The so-called Amash Amendment failed 217-205, after a push by the White House, GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress and intelligence officials to kill it off.

I wrote a e-mail to my rep. next time i'm just going to call.

 

[bentom187]

Exclusive: NSA Using Copyright Claims To Crush Free Speech?

Ben Swann Reality Check

Episode 3

NSA Using Copyright Claims To Crush Free Speech?



Can a government agency block criticism by claiming copyright infringement? Sounds a bit ridiculous but it is happening. The NSA is effectively stopping one small business owner from criticism, claiming that by using its name he has infringed on their copyright.

Can they do that?

This is a Reality Check you won’t see anywhere else.

This is a story I had a hard time believing until I looked into it for myself. Here is the backstory.

Dan McCall is the owner of a company that makes snarky t-shirts. The company is called Liberty Maniacs. Liberty Maniacs carry a number of t-shirts dealing with lack of privacy and the growing police state. They sell on a site called. XXX.Zazzle.XXX

None of it has been a problem—until Liberty Maniacs released a shirt called “The NSA.”

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

Im retarded i apologize.

 

[bombadil.360]

hi bombadil.360,

just cause someone is not satisfied with the official bull shit report about 9/11 which 3 out of 5 of the investigating 911 commissioners have them selves described as incomplete and misleading. is no reason to doubt someones judgment. in fact 99% of the 911 truth movement just think the gov version of the event is full of massive holes and bs. what actually happened is not claimed to be known by most, even if there are many theories and speculation, but what is clear is that the official story is not holding water and is being called in to question from pretty much every scientific point of view you can think of. thousands of architects, engineers and pilots say the official version of events is impossible. demolition experts, security experts, defense experts, professors of physics, scientists, explosives experts, engineers, steel frame construction specialists. they all say, that the official version of events is not possible.

whether it's the ACE level piloting abilities of the pentagon pilot, (who wasn't capable of getting a Cessna off the ground), or the apparent crumbly nature of the world trade center towers, or the indestructible passports, that survived an explosion hot enough to apparently melt the steel frames of the building as well as vaporizing most of the plane and a huge part of the towers. but those passports miraculously are found with barely a singe mark on them. there is no body parts bigger then an inch to be found after the event, but these passports for some reason got magicked out of their pockets or luggage to land on top of the whole pile of dust. so it can be found within hours of the towers falling, lol.

or how about the sleepy controllers in charge of the pentagons automatic air defense systems? let alone the national air defense system being breached 4x inside a few hours, for hours on end. with none of the normal procedures being followed regarding hijacked planes or planes that leave their flight path, like they did on every other day when a plane left his course or stopped communicating, (911 planes did both). they practice intercepting hijacked planes all the time. why didn't they scramble jets as they did on every other occasion inside of minutes of loss of communication or unexplained change of flight path.

we could go on and on, but this shouldn't be about 911 in the end. this is about what Snowden has made public to the masses which most of us knew about already, even if not to what extent this is supposedly going on or how much of a wild west those data collection programs have become with all these thousands of cases where even their lax rules were not followed.

to be honest i'd be very surprised if Snowden was anything other then what he claims to be. he is confirming what a lot of folks have suspected. in fact others leaked some of this stuff before him, they just didnt give their names so they stayed hidden, making their statements less powerful then Eds, who even outed the nsa's own power point presentation for employees to learn about these spying techniques. can't ask for more then that from a whistle blower.

hello gaiusmarius,

my point is not that if you doubt the official 9/11 story, that then you are to be seen with poor judgement.

my point is that since many here do not in fact believe the 9/11 official story fed through the same media that is feeding you Snowden, then it seems that many here simply pick and choose in a selective way which info from said media to trust; specially when the info helps cement their pre-conceived ideas.

that is, how can you not trust the info on 9/11, but trust the info on Snowden when both are coming from the same sources?

anyway, it is not an important point, but it does make you wonder about the phenomenon of selectively believing which info is true and which isn't in the mass media.

peace

 

[bombadil.360]

Here is the NEWS. Google doing it, in exchange for giving me free e-mail and other services. Apple doing it, in exchange for letting me be part of the cool club; these are examples of FREE TRADE and FREEDOM of CONTRACT.

The US Government doing it SECRETLY, without my consent, and in violation of CONSTITUTIONAL protections is NEWS, and a declaration of war against all of us. Fuck the war on drugs, they've moved on to the War on Individuals.

that's not news at all.

in fact, in every terms of service you accept with google, for example, it is explicit that your personal info is being used for other purposes, except for spam maybe.

maybe if you took the time to read through their terms of service you'd see this has been so for a long time now.

hence why I wonder why people have gmail accounts to begin with, it is a well known fact.

peace

 

[gaiusmarius]

hello gaiusmarius,

my point is not that if you doubt the official 9/11 story, that then you are to be seen with poor judgement.

my point is that since many here do not in fact believe the 9/11 official story fed through the same media that is feeding you Snowden, then it seems that many here simply pick and choose in a selective way which info from said media to trust; specially when the info helps cement their pre-conceived ideas.

that is, how can you not trust the info on 9/11, but trust the info on Snowden when both are coming from the same sources?

anyway, it is not an important point, but it does make you wonder about the phenomenon of selectively believing which info is true and which isn't in the mass media.

peace

i don't know if i should feel insulted or misunderstood. people don't believe 911 was an inside job because alex jones says so, no they studie the issue and look at everything they can find about it and make their own minds up about it, even if they end up on the same side us someone with a nutty rep.

now when it comes to the snowden story, we have the same thing, people investigate and look at the data and when it seems to add up they decide that it's probably tru.

it's not about any 1 messenger being the ultimate truth speaker or the ultimate liar. it's about using your brain and analyzing the story to decide whether it is possible or not. whether it makes sense or not? it's your job to look for the best sources of information you can find on a given subject. i find looking to the opposition in every case for the other side of the story is of great general value

now when we see these stories being published while at the same time the us gov takes unprecedented action to try and get their hands on Snowden it rather begs the question, how can you doubt? they forced a presidential plane to land and be searched on the mere suspicion that Snowden might be on board.

i'm trying to say, the messenger (guardian in this case) on his own is worth fuck all, only your mind and logic can give you an idea of what to believe and when to keep a skeptical state of mind. as long as you always keep in mind that further information might come out which changes things again.

 

[headband 707]

Giving Snowden/Manning 35 years is absolute proof that the US doesn't want to know what is right or wrong about their extremely corrupt Gov. Telling anyone that might change this you will end up either missing or accidentally killed by the powers that be.Sounds like a Gov that works for the people by the people LOL..
As far as 9/11 wow what a bunch of bullshit the more you find out about building 7 having all the paperwork about all that really important info just blown up and now they have no more proof that the Army lost 2.3 trillion lol yeah okay because you know there would have only been one paper copy of all that info right lol..If a plane really hit the Pentagon then where is it? Show me those pics .....????headband 707
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=s...ilc=12&type=670416&p=proof 9/11 didn't happen

 

[bombadil.360]

i don't know if i should feel insulted or misunderstood. people don't believe 911 was an inside job because alex jones says so, no they studie the issue and look at everything they can find about it and make their own minds up about it, even if they end up on the same side us someone with a nutty rep.

now when it comes to the snowden story, we have the same thing, people investigate and look at the data and when it seems to add up they decide that it's probably tru.

it's not about any 1 messenger being the ultimate truth speaker or the ultimate liar. it's about using your brain and analyzing the story to decide whether it is possible or not. whether it makes sense or not? it's your job to look for the best sources of information you can find on a given subject. i find looking to the opposition in every case for the other side of the story is of great general value

now when we see these stories being published while at the same time the us gov takes unprecedented action to try and get their hands on Snowden it rather begs the question, how can you doubt? they forced a presidential plane to land and be searched on the mere suspicion that Snowden might be on board.

i'm trying to say, the messenger (guardian in this case) on his own is worth fuck all, only your mind and logic can give you an idea of what to believe and when to keep a skeptical state of mind. as long as you always keep in mind that further information might come out which changes things again.

it is impossible not to agree with you on the point that our mind is the ultimate judge of what's true or not; however, in the two examples we're using: 9/11 and Snowden; our minds have no way beyond its ability to speculate with the info out there to make any definite conclusions.

also, if we are really considering the other side of the story regarding the Snowden case, then we should be able to consider that there's a high possibility that whatever he can leak can cause damage to innocent civilians. hence why they want this info secured.

maybe the info is so delicate in said terms, that forcing the airplane of a dubious president such as Evo to land is not a big deal of a decision. Afterall, most of the coca being produced in Bolivia is not being chewed locally, if you know what I mean.

let me give you another example to illustrate my point: you have this icmag crew that pofesses the evil of the European Union and have all kinds of dooms-day predictions when they discuss the American Union and the so-called Americo; but have nothing but praises for politicians like Chavez who proposed unifying the currency of South America as well as ending passport/visas issues a la EU style.

makes you wonder about this selective believing thing...

peace

 

[Slip Kid]

"What, me worry?"

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

that is, how can you not trust the info on 9/11, but trust the info on Snowden when both are coming from the same sources?

anyway, it is not an important point, but it does make you wonder about the phenomenon of selectively believing which info is true and which isn't in the mass media.

peace

this "phenomenon" is not any newer than the government not caring about privacy.

EXAMPLE = when they tell us in history class that one crazy fucktard with a rifle started WW1 by himself we say OK and don't even think any further, but if they tell us that one crazy fucktard with a rifle killed JFK 8 of 10 americans call bullshit

8 of 10 americans also believed that weed should be a schedule 1 drug for 50+ years even though the guys blowing that sunshine up our collective asses thought booze was a good way to cope with stress

i gave up on trying to understand why we believe anything we did not see with our own eyes years ago

 

[gaiusmarius]

it is impossible not to agree with you on the point that our mind is the ultimate judge of what's true or not; however, in the two examples we're using: 9/11 and Snowden; our minds have no way beyond its ability to speculate with the info out there to make any definite conclusions.

also, if we are really considering the other side of the story regarding the Snowden case, then we should be able to consider that there's a high possibility that whatever he can leak can cause damage to innocent civilians. hence why they want this info secured.

maybe the info is so delicate in said terms, that forcing the airplane of a dubious president such as Evo to land is not a big deal of a decision. Afterall, most of the coca being produced in Bolivia is not being chewed locally, if you know what I mean.

let me give you another example to illustrate my point: you have this icmag crew that pofesses the evil of the European Union and have all kinds of dooms-day predictions when they discuss the American Union and the so-called Americo; but have nothing but praises for politicians like Chavez who proposed unifying the currency of South America as well as ending passport/visas issues a la EU style.

makes you wonder about this selective believing thing...

peace

while i enjoy these little chats we have over the years, this is really not the thread to bring up every conspiracy out there. ie eu etc.

i do want to say that calling morales a dubious president is just a cheap shot. the guy has more of a mandate from his people then many a western leader. double standards much?

what has been exposed however is that you are prepared to voice anything if it can somehow be used in your stance. ie you were implying that the whole snowden story might be a lie, or a false flag event, or what? now it turns out you don't doubt the leaks legitimacy after all as you are voicing concern for any sensitive operational information geting into the wrong hands. thats not intellectually honest.

as for that potential for harm, just think, if they were not breaking all these laws and lying to the public, none of their people would be in danger, if they even are. so far not one shred of evidence has been produced that any leaked info could cause harm to any active us operations in the world. even if some of us think, go the fuck home and leave the rest of the planet to live how they choose and you won't be endangering your people. if you want to be the worlds policeman enforcing unjust laws, then don't be surprised if there is a price to be paid. so yeah it's all relative.