NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily

[jcd11235 0]

quade

***So it's okay to take the DNI at his word when he acknowledges the program, but not when he discusses the limits of the program? That's awfully convenient for you, don't you think?

Let's say a mom opens a kid's computer, checks the web history and finds the address, "sexyasianporn.com." She tells dad about it. Dad then asks the kid about it and the kid says, "Oh, yeah, sexyasianporn.com was just something I was looking at for a school project."

By his own admission, the kid has VERIFIED he has looked at sexyasianporn.com.

Why, how long, how much, how much it might cost the family . . . that's all still to be determined.

Your analogy might make sense if the kid was known to be studying porn production in school.

Yes, the NDI confirmed PRISM. Thus far there isn't any credible indication that the program goes beyond what the NDI claims.

Is it possible that it is more pervasive than the NDI acknowledges? Sure. It's also possible that fire breathing dragons exist. The burden of proof lies with those claiming the NDI is lying or that fire-breathing dragons exist.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ryoder 1,590]

The whistleblower: Edward Snowden: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Kennedy 0]

jcd11235

***What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts."

I fail to see where you were concerned with verification of the "facts" provided in the Guardian article. So it's okay to accept a reporter's word at face value, but not the word of someone actually familiar with the program being discussed, right?

Like I said, it's tin-foil hat time.

The article in the guardian prompted a response from the White House, DCI and DNI, and Sen Feinstein and other "read-in" congresscritters. There's no doubt the software named and programs described exist in the intelligence community. The only question is how accurate the specifics were. Some were a little too Hollywood, and they're backing off a bit, but the substance remains substantially unchanged.

When it comes to DNI talking points, well, he's allowed to lie to congress even in closed hearings if POTUS oks it, so his comments to the public should always be well-seasoned. Or maybe you believed that carnivore never existed, and they never eavesdropped on American phone calls. I've got a bridge to sell you. Great location, recently updated, heavy traffic. Just privatized.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jcd11235 0]

Kennedy

******What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts."

I fail to see where you were concerned with verification of the "facts" provided in the Guardian article. So it's okay to accept a reporter's word at face value, but not the word of someone actually familiar with the program being discussed, right?

Like I said, it's tin-foil hat time.

The article in the guardian prompted a response from the White House, DCI and DNI, and Sen Feinstein and other "read-in" congresscritters. There's no doubt the software named and programs described exist in the intelligence community. The only question is how accurate the specifics were. Some were a little too Hollywood, and they're backing off a bit, but the substance remains substantially unchanged.

When it comes to DNI talking points, well, he's allowed to lie to congress even in closed hearings if POTUS oks it, so his comments to the public should always be well-seasoned. Or maybe you believed that carnivore never existed, and they never eavesdropped on American phone calls. I've got a bridge to sell you. Great location, recently updated, heavy traffic. Just privatized.

Yes, the PRISM program exists. The accuracy of the specifics, however, is important. I haven't seen anything that suggests a risk to privacy. I don't believe (more importantly, the courts don't seem to believe) that discriminant monitoring of anonymous communications metadata crosses that line. Personally, I don't think it even approaches that line.

In my experience, attempts to curtail rights are far more likely to occur at the local and state levels of government than at the federal level.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,148]

quade

*********Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

It says "facts," but since that's a handout from the DNI how, exactly, do we know?
It's tin foil hat time, ladies and gentlemen!

Being skeptical and asking how do we know if an intelligence agency is telling the truth about "facts" isn't exactly tin-foil hat territory. Intelligence agencies operate via obfuscation of information as standard operation procedure. To a certain extent, it's a requirement of what they do.

With that in mind, how can we,outsiders, ever know what is and isn't a "fact" from them?

As we learned from Obi-Wan-Kenobi, an outright lie can be the truth "from a certain point of view".

Quote

Luke: "A certain point of view"?
Obi-Wan: Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

quade

I encourage you to look at the sources of intelligence leading up to the war on Iraq. Not the individuals who might have publicly stated them but the cherry picking and outright fabrications made. In particular, look at who directed the cherry picking and who used their influence on the man sitting in the Oval Office.

I can post the quotes of all of those who saw Iraq as a threat
Before Bush ran for office, while he was running for office and while he was in office
I can post the votes of those supporting his request to go into Iraq

YOU need to do the research

Funny you are still even posting on this subject other than your desire to re-write history to fit your needs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

I see you as a threat.
That doesn't mean I'm going to go to war with you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

I see you as a threat.
That doesn't mean I'm going to go to war with you.

Now a new angle


The government ea al believe Iraq was a threat

the congress voted for it

regardless of how you spin it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

The data used to convince them it was enough of a threat to o to war was, in large part, cherry-picked for that exact purpose. It's like lying to them. A decision based on false information is not a valid decision.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

wmw999

The data used to convince them it was enough of a threat to o to war was, in large part, cherry-picked for that exact purpose. It's like lying to them. A decision based on false information is not a valid decision.

Wendy P.

Please tell me which of these people were also "Cherry Picking" their information.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[quade 4]

Please tell me which ones were confident enough in their assessment to go to WAR on it.

There is a huge fucking difference.

Or can you actually not see the difference between being told of a threat and voicing a potential response, and actually carrying out an invasion of another country?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

Please tell me which ones were confident enough in their assessment to go to WAR on it.

There is a huge fucking difference.

Or can you actually not see the difference between being told of a threat and voicing a potential response, and actually carrying out an invasion of another country?

The issue being discussed is not whether someone acted on the intel or not. The issue is that everyone, including the 2 faced, back-stabbing Democrats all thought he had WMDs. Clearly they did and any claims they were some how horn-swaggled are BS.

On a side note, Clinton could have taken Bin Laden out on several occasions but pussied out. Nothing had to happen.

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

There is a huge fucking difference.

Or can you actually not see the difference between being told of a threat and voicing a potential response, and actually carrying out an invasion of another country?

To have stood by and done nothing when there was a credible threat would have been an impeachable offense.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

***

There is a huge fucking difference.

Or can you actually not see the difference between being told of a threat and voicing a potential response, and actually carrying out an invasion of another country?

To have stood by and done nothing when there was a credible threat would have been an impeachable offense.

And what is it called when people manipulate the data to suit their agenda and go to war based on that?

Crimes against humanity?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

******

There is a huge fucking difference.

Or can you actually not see the difference between being told of a threat and voicing a potential response, and actually carrying out an invasion of another country?

To have stood by and done nothing when there was a credible threat would have been an impeachable offense.

And what is it called when people manipulate the data to suit their agenda and go to war based on that?

Crimes against humanity?

Show me that data Clinton manipulated to come to the conclusion there were WMD's.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

Show me that data Clinton manipulated to come to the conclusion there were WMD's.

Show me the history book that says he launched an invasion over it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

***Show me that data Clinton manipulated to come to the conclusion there were WMD's.

Show me the history book that says he launched an invasion over it.

What's that got to do with your ridiculous claim that Bush manipulated intel?

I also love how you left wingers blame Bush for all this bad intel 8 months into his Presidency tey absolve Obama for anything nearly 5 years in.

Want to go back and discuss how Jamie Gorelick devastated American Intel?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/

Seriously, get over your BDS.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

What's that got to do with your ridiculous claim that Bush manipulated intel?

I also love how you left wingers blame Bush for all this bad intel 8 months into his Presidency tey absolve Obama for anything nearly 5 years in.

First of all, I never said Bush manipulated the intel. In fact, it's a pretty well proven fact that he was fed manipulated intel.

THAT, my friend, is the issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

***What's that got to do with your ridiculous claim that Bush manipulated intel?

I also love how you left wingers blame Bush for all this bad intel 8 months into his Presidency tey absolve Obama for anything nearly 5 years in.

First of all, I never said Bush manipulated the intel. In fact, it's a pretty well proven fact that he was fed manipulated intel.

THAT, my friend, is the issue.

It might surprise you to know that I happen to agree with you on the point that Bush received bad intel.

I jumped into this thread when the bullshit claim was made that Bush "Cherry-picked" the intel. I then posted a link to many in the Clinton admin making the claim tha Iraq had WMDs and asked what intel they "Cherry- picked".

[kallend 2,148]

It's funny how the very people who, on these very forums fully supported the GOP designed "Patriot" Act as signed into law by G.W. Bush (R), are now up in arms over its inevitable consequences. WTF did you expect?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kallend

It's funny how the very people who, on these very forums fully supported the GOP designed "Patriot" Act as signed into law by G.W. Bush (R), are now up in arms over its inevitable consequences. WTF did you expect?

I am amazed at how some on this board are unable to grasp the fact that the scope of the original Patriot Act has changed and what's going on today is unrecognizable. It's almost as if some are looking for false self-validation for some reason. Strange.

[kallend 2,148]

Gravitymaster

***It's funny how the very people who, on these very forums fully supported the GOP designed "Patriot" Act as signed into law by G.W. Bush (R), are now up in arms over its inevitable consequences. WTF did you expect?

I am amazed at how some on this board are unable to grasp the fact that the scope of the original Patriot Act has changed and what's going on today is unrecognizable. It's almost as if some are looking for false self-validation for some reason. Strange.

How many GOP senators and congressmen voted for the original act? How many voted for its renewal?

How many posters to this forum spoke out against it when it was passed? NOT YOU!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kallend

******It's funny how the very people who, on these very forums fully supported the GOP designed "Patriot" Act as signed into law by G.W. Bush (R), are now up in arms over its inevitable consequences. WTF did you expect?

I am amazed at how some on this board are unable to grasp the fact that the scope of the original Patriot Act has changed and what's going on today is unrecognizable. It's almost as if some are looking for false self-validation for some reason. Strange.

How many GOP senators and congressmen voted for the original act? How many voted for its renewal?

How many posters to this forum spoke out against it when it was passed? NOT YOU!

I'm reminded of someone I know I'll call "Timmy" Timmy loves to look at current events and proclaim, "I knew that would happen". He's also known to make all kinds of "predictions" many of which turn out to be untrue, but he likes to ignore those and only focus on the ones that are true. Pretty pathetic of "Timmy" isn't it? Have you ever known someone like "Timmy"?

[Bertt 0]

Well, there was this buddy of mine in grammar school named Nostradamus.
Truthfully, one of the most worrisome things about this type of program is that three-letter agencies will become so focused on this sort of mindless information gathering that they will replace a useful art with an expensive and counter-productive science.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[kallend 2,148]

"If members of Congress did not know what they were voting on, then I think that's their responsibility a lot more than it is the government's"; Sen John McCain (R), 6/9/2013

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.