Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)

[Bos_hybrid]

I don't get why Snowden thinks he's safe in Ecuador, if the US wants him, they'll get him.

[BruceVC]

Well, ref my above point about Ecuador, it looks like Quinto (the president) left the trade agreement on his own on Tuesday. Thereby pre-empting US action.

 

I feel sorry for the poor ****ing Ecuadorians. Yet another Latin American leader decides he wants to go full Che, so he can grab a few statues at the expense of people having a normal life.

 

 

I don't get why Snowden thinks he's safe in Ecuador, if the US wants him, they'll get him.

 

Under other USA regimes he might not have been safe but under the Obama presidency its highly unlikely, I would say almost impossible, that the USA would send a special force raiding party into Ecuador to kidnap Snowden. That's why he will be safe as that's the only way I can think  he would be forced to leave Ecuador.

 

But as Walsie mentioned Ecuador risks economic penalties from the USA and that will effect the poor in Ecuador. Not the president who is enjoying his moment of anti-American sentiment in the limelight

[Meshugger]

The US PR is already down the ****er in South America, so i am not surprised by neither their behaviour or reactions.

[Walsingham]

That's the problem with Obama. He's nobody's enemy, and hence nobody's friend. Never trust a man who won't make his own enemies.

[Gfted1]

Under other USA regimes he might not have been safe but under the Obama presidency its highly unlikely, I would say almost impossible, that the USA would send a special force raiding party into Ecuador to kidnap Snowden. That's why he will be safe as that's the only way I can think  he would be forced to leave Ecuador.

I doubt it would go down like that. If anything, he will most likely trip and fall into a shallow grave filled with lye. Years from now there will be unconfirmed sightings of him having lunch with Elvis.

[Walsingham]

Sending in special forces is not something Presidents do lightly. It can be terribly embarrassing. Look at how close the Usama Bin Laden raid came to a Blackhawk Down.

 

Snowden's probably going to be OK in his way.

 

The real question all this circus is distracting you from is what happens next? Does a wikileak actually make anything happen? Or, as I've said before, is it in fact the political equivalent of an upskirt photo? Giving the illusion of privileged insight without any real benefits?

[Gorgon]

Knowing is better than not. Other than that I don't imagine it will change much. It's a relief really, that secret societies of the size and scope of the NSA can't count on the loyalty of everyone they employ.

 

I have noticed this predispotition to focus on wikileaks or the leaker rather than the material before. I don't really understand why leaking is something that fills you with ire. It has been going on for as long as politics, it's very much part of the game.

[Walsingham]

Knowing is better than not. Other than that I don't imagine it will change much. It's a relief really, that secret societies of the size and scope of the NSA can't count on the loyalty of everyone they employ.

 

I have noticed this predispotition to focus on wikileaks or the leaker rather than the material before. I don't really understand why leaking is something that fills you with ire. It has been going on for as long as politics, it's very much part of the game.

 

Because I don't believe security should be a political game. The enemy is the enemy, not the ones across the House or whatever. That's why it's called 'loyal opposition' (at least in the UK).

 

I would hope that at least some of you wouldn't hodl the position you do if the venal self-serving greedy ****ers in the system got soundly thrashed every now and then. But ultimately that's OUR responsibility as voters.

[pmp10]

I would hope that at least some of you wouldn't hodl the position you do if the venal self-serving greedy ****ers in the system got soundly thrashed every now and then. But ultimately that's OUR responsibility as voters.

I think you overestimate the ability to effect things with voting.

Frankly I believe that no matter which president US elected PRISM would still happen.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Hehe

 

[Guard Dog]

 

Well, ref my above point about Ecuador, it looks like Quinto (the president) left the trade agreement on his own on Tuesday. Thereby pre-empting US action.

 

I feel sorry for the poor ****ing Ecuadorians. Yet another Latin American leader decides he wants to go full Che, so he can grab a few statues at the expense of people having a normal life.

 

 

I don't get why Snowden thinks he's safe in Ecuador, if the US wants him, they'll get him.

 

Under other USA regimes he might not have been safe but under the Obama presidency its highly unlikely, I would say almost impossible, that the USA would send a special force raiding party into Ecuador to kidnap Snowden. That's why he will be safe as that's the only way I can think  he would be forced to leave Ecuador.

 

But as Walsie mentioned Ecuador risks economic penalties from the USA and that will effect the poor in Ecuador. Not the president who is enjoying his moment of anti-American sentiment in the limelight

 

Are you freaking serious Bruce? As an American I have NEVER felt more threatened by ANY administration than this one. Just a few weeks ago this man asserted that it would be perfectly legal for him to use a drone to kill an American citizen on US soil, not due process, no judicial review, if he determined they were "involved in terrorism". Yes, they took it all back afterwards when they saw how upset everyone got. And of course his idea of what terrorism is has nothing in common with what most folks think it is. He has talked about raising a "new national security force, as well trained and as well armed as the military". Really? Who the hell do you think he means this force to fight? He is using the IRS to shut down political speech he does not like. In 2009 he joked about auditing his "enemies". In 2013 we found out he was really doing it. And that, all that is nothing when now we find out he has turned with massive NSA spying apparatus at the people he really distrusts: us. I would not be surprised if we hear that Snowden committed "suicide" any day now.

 

I make light about politics but I want you to know I am being serious right now. We may get past all of this. We may throw that man and his miserable cadre of authoritarian freedom-hating statists out of office some day. Or we may not. But if there is a schism, if the country does break up, or God forbid, if there ever is a second Civil War, history will record that is began with him.

[pmp10]

I make light about politics but I want you to know I am being serious right now. We may get past all of this. We may throw that man and his miserable cadre of authoritarian freedom-hating statists out of office some day. Or we may not. But if there is a schism, if the country does break up, or God forbid, if there ever is a second Civil War, history will record that is began with him.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't republicans essentially in favor of PRISM?

It doesn't seem to me like there is much of a split in political circles.

[Gorgon]

There is a long history of rolling back individual rights in response to percieved threats. The problem of course is when or how it ever gets decided that the threat is over.

[Bos_hybrid]

I don't get why Snowden thinks he's safe in Ecuador, if the US wants him, they'll get him.

 

Under other USA regimes he might not have been safe but under the Obama presidency its highly unlikely, I would say almost impossible, that the USA would send a special force raiding party into Ecuador to kidnap Snowden. That's why he will be safe as that's the only way I can think  he would be forced to leave Ecuador.

 

He will never be safe. Sure he's probably not going to die of radiation poisoning, but the US will get him.

 

This isn't a guy with millions of dollars, or the beloved leader of a terrorist group. He's one guy, all alone. The US doesn't need a special forces raiding party.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't republicans essentially in favor of PRISM?

It doesn't seem to me like there is much of a split in political circles.

 

 

Why would an opposition be opposed to something that would benefit them if they ever retake power. 

[Calax]

He is using the IRS to shut down political speech he does not like. In 2009 he joked about auditing his "enemies". In 2013 we found out he was really doing it. And that, all that is nothing when now we find out he has turned with massive NSA spying apparatus at the people he really distrusts: us. I would not be surprised if we hear that Snowden committed "suicide" any day now.

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The IRS stuff is actually pretty understandable. Assuming that an Anti-Tax group is more likely to have dubious accounting when it comes to paying taxes sounds pretty logical.

[Guard Dog]

 

He is using the IRS to shut down political speech he does not like. In 2009 he joked about auditing his "enemies". In 2013 we found out he was really doing it. And that, all that is nothing when now we find out he has turned with massive NSA spying apparatus at the people he really distrusts: us. I would not be surprised if we hear that Snowden committed "suicide" any day now.

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Wrong: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/irs_employees_say_supervisors.html

 

And while the president himself probably did not give the order I refuse to believe for a second he was not aware of it at least after the fact. You and KP would be wailing and gnashing your teeth if this was a republican president and the IRS was targeting liberals. Like I always say, you guys are an example of everything wrong with this country. You are willing to accept, even endorse to most horrifying malfeasance as long as it's "your guy" doing it.

[Guard Dog]

 

I make light about politics but I want you to know I am being serious right now. We may get past all of this. We may throw that man and his miserable cadre of authoritarian freedom-hating statists out of office some day. Or we may not. But if there is a schism, if the country does break up, or God forbid, if there ever is a second Civil War, history will record that is began with him.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't republicans essentially in favor of PRISM?

It doesn't seem to me like there is much of a split in political circles.

 

They were indeed. Originally it was intended to spy on Americans communicating with potential terrorists overseas. I was against from the get-go. Now it spying on us and yes the republicans are all for it for the most part. The only thing that is more despicable and repugnant than a republican is a democrat. Every two years I have to hold my nose and pick one of them and I usually choose the lesser of the two evils.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its ridiculous to spy on the whole nation as a form of defense against the statistically insignificant phenomenon of terrorism. More people die from car crashes daily than in a year from terrorist activity.

 

A wise and benevolent leader would just keep the status quo and reassure the public. They would also keep the fear mongering media in check.

 

Alas, there are no such leaders.

 

Today's politicians are just corporate lackeys shoving money into the pockets of whatever private companies are recruited to build the infrastructure of these systems while they play golf with their CEO's and laugh at the stupidity of the tax payers and their propensity to throw away their hard won freedom for vague promises of protection against a random occurrence.

[Hurlshort]

If the IRS targeted liberals, they'd just end up auditing collections of birkenstocks and cars that run on vegetable oil.

[ravenshrike]

The IRS stuff is actually pretty understandable. Assuming that an Anti-Tax group is more likely to have dubious accounting when it comes to paying taxes sounds pretty logical.

And that shows you have no clue what was going on. NONE of the applications in question were denied. They were all delayed until conveniently right after the election. These were not 501©3 orgs who are not allowed political spending. These are 501©4s. Moreover, the questionnaires that the orgs in question were required to fill out are downright disturbing and I guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them

 

• “Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.”
• “Please explain in detail the derivation of your organization’s name.” (in a letter to the Ohio-based 1851 Center for  Constitutional Law)
• “Please explain in detail your organization’s involvement with the Tea Party.”
• “Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas.” (a Cincinnati-area Tea-Party activist)
• “Provide information regarding the Butler County Teen Age Republicans and your relationship.”
• “Submit the following information relating to your past and present directors, officers, and key employees: a) Provide a resume for each.”
• “The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. … The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.”
• “The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they spent on the event or program.” (for events)
• “Provide copies of the handbills you distributed at your monthly meetings.”
• “Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school.”
• “Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you.”
• “Are you on Facebook or other social networking sites? If yes, provide copies of these pages.”
• “Provide copies of the agendas and minutes of your Board meetings and, if applicable, members ship meetings, including a description of legislative and electoral issues discussed, and whether candidates for political office were invited to address the meeting.”
• “Do your issue-related advocacy communications compare to the positions of candidates or slates of candidates on these issues with your positions? Provide copies of these communications. What percentage do these constitute of your issue-related advocacy communications?”
• “Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for political office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship.”
• “Apart from your responses to the preceding, estimate the percentage of your time and what percentage of your resources you will devote to activities in the 2012 election cycle, in which you will explicitly or implicitly support or oppose a candidate, candidates or slates of candidates, for public office.”

Moreover, as the Treasury IG found

 

 

 

Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a “Progressives” entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.

 

Pretending that this wasn't a political chilling attempt is asinine.

[Zoraptor]

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

[Calax]

 

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down.

 

I'm for leaks, and against Prism. I can understand why prism exists and would be bothered by it, but it's digging through so much crap that I feel safe (of course if it ever bites me, I'd probably get more pissed). Doesn't mean it's right however. And the leaks, if you dig through my post history you'll see me defending these leaks and sites like wikileaks on the premise that if they didn't exist, the government wouldn't be a government of the people because the people wouldn't be able to make informed decisions about who's governing them.

 

Not that they can anyway, but that's beside the point.

[ravenshrike]

 

 

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down.

We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game.

[Calax]

 

 

 

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down.

We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game.

 

And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything.