NY Times: The administration has now lost all credibility.

[Garufa]

From the NY Times editorial board:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

[vontar]

I am so glad you posted this as I was thinking about it all day wanting to get up.

 

More coming

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/politics/nsa-verizon-records/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Guardian story refers to a "three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years" -- so that while the uproar may be new, the program is not. In that time, it's helped to disrupt "terrorist plots" on U.S. soil, she said.

"It is lawful," the California Democrat insisted. "It has been briefed by Congress."

 

 

 

Yup, Dianne Feinstein supports it so no surprise there.

 

I think we need to make a thread of lost liberties and over reach of the Government.  Heck, you know this forum is monitored daily/hourly.

Edited June 6, 2013 by vontar

[runco]

After 4 years, 138 days, dah!

 

http://howlonghasobamabeenpresident.com/

[Mike.357]

no one that can do anything about Obama's administration cares at all.  They are all part of the problem.

[QuietDan]

It is amazing to see criticism of the God-Emperor Barack Hussein Obama in the New York Times. Unheard of!!

[TrickyNicky]

They can't have lost all their credibility, they never had any in the first place? ;)

[LagerHead]

I am so glad you posted this as I was thinking about it all day wanting to get up.

 

More coming

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/politics/nsa-verizon-records/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

 

Yup, Dianne Feinstein supports it so no surprise there.

 

I think we need to make a thread of lost liberties and over reach of the Government.  Heck, you know this forum is monitored daily/hourly.

 

We don't need an entire thread. We can just sum it up to say we have lost at least part of every one of them. We no longer have unabridged rights that are supposedly protected by the Constitution. 

 

But it is a good sign that even the lapdog media have had their eyes pried at least partly open. 

Edited June 7, 2013 by LagerHead

[whitewolf001]

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

[jcoosi]

Yeah they are about 4 and half years on this late breaking story

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In the category of delicious irony-- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/06/-obamas-agenda-lost-in-firestorm/2398881/

 

Renowned twit Al Gore twits- "Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?" This from the most ardent advocate of the ill-fated clipper chip, aka universal government back-door into all computer and communication systems. Luckily neither the clipper chip nor the subsequent feature-limited tipper chip revision succeeded at the time.

 

http://www.softwar.net/gore.html

 

Other interesting links--

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-tech-nsa-data-clapper

Edited June 7, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[jughead]

if feinstein is for it i am automatically against it

[npgunner]

if feinstein is for it i am automatically against it

I second this ... unless of course it's regarding her resignation

[DaveTN]

I don’t see how the federal government can justify violating the rights of innocent Americans who are no threat to this country when the courts routinely let criminals go because they claim their rights were violated when they were arrested? Criminals who are clearly a threat to the wellbeing of those around them.

 

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don’t see how the federal government can justify violating the rights of innocent Americans who are no threat to this country when the courts routinely let criminals go because they claim their rights were violated when they were arrested? Criminals who are clearly a threat to the wellbeing of those around them.

 

Hi DaveTN

 

I agree. I had read the following explanation but do not know if it is accurate.

 

If they intend to prosecute a person for espionage, terrorism, conspiracy or some other crime, then the FBI or Justice dept at least needs a rubber-stamp warrant to assure that the evidence will be admissible at trial.

 

However, if the NSA or some other bunch of spooks are merely snooping "just because they can" and they do not intend to charge you with a crime (based on the collected evidence)-- Or maybe they would just as soon fly a drone up yer butt-- Then in that case they figure they don't need a warrant because they wouldn't be infringing your rights in a court of law. Or some such BS. Especially if you don't even know you were snooped. Out of sight, out of mind, yanno.

 

Another thought-- Perhaps the rationale for saving it all off-- I don't see any way it could be proved whether or not the government had "peeked" at all the cached data. So perhaps the government could discover criminal activity of some scumbag as a by-product of artificial-intelligence-snooping you, me and grandma. And then use other methods to determine "reasonable suspicion". Use the evidence obtained by "other methods" to obtain a warrant to "open up" the cache of previous data, and then the previous snooping would also be admissible in court?

Edited June 8, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Hershmeister]

Sadly the NY Times pulled a 1984 move and edited their own article. Now it say He has lost all credibility on this issue

Such a bunch of suck ups.

[Garufa]

Sadly the NY Times pulled a 1984 move and edited their own article. Now it say He has lost all credibility on this issue

Such a bunch of suck ups.

 

They sure did.  Unbelievable.

[JAB]

Meh, I think Obama-butt-kisser rags have to, occasionally, run a 'story' or 'editorial' that is (usually mildly) critical of Barry.  The reason this is necessary is so that next week when they tell you he walked across the Potomac to heal handicapped children in a Maryland hospital they can claim to be unbiased because they 'criticized' him in the past.

Edited June 13, 2013 by JAB

[ttocswob]

The NY Times should know about lost credibility.

[Raoul]

The NY Times should know about lost credibility.

Amen. The gray lady sure ain't what she used to be.

[RichardR]

Ideological corruption is a funny thing, most folks don't even realize that their impartiality has been effected, since they view events through their own internal filter, which of course is the same filter as most of the NYT readers.

Conservatives are also guilty of this, it's just human nature ... the problem becomes when "news reporting" is done in such a way to illicit certain reactions or tamp them down or sway folks one way or another, which is what has been happening for decades now.

News reports stopped being news reports & have literally become ideological/political propaganda outlets, very dangerous stuff IMHO.

[Mike.357]

 

 

News reports stopped being news reports & have literally become ideological/political propaganda outlets, very dangerous stuff IMHO.

 

 

I am pretty sure this has been going on as long as there has been news reports.  So it is nothing new.

[RichardR]

I am pretty sure this has been going on as long as there has been news reports. So it is nothing new.

You admit it's happening, but choose to ignore it.

Interesting, but this does seem to be the new "American Way" of dealing with political corruption & out-right media manipulation.