Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Mass Blanket Surveillance - Obama is NOT the 'Change' We Believed In

Posted 5 years ago on June 7, 2013, 8:21 p.m. EST by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


Published on Jun 7, 2013 "The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries."*

We now know that the NSA has conducted mass surveillance on Verizon (and in all likelihood other telecommunication outlets) customers. This blanket spying was done indiscriminately, on American citizens. Certain politicians say it's great that this is happening, that they'll gladly be spied upon. Is this liberty? Does President Obama know the meaning of civil rights? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

*Read more from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/...



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by lester06 (28) 5 years ago

The NSA is controlled by the Pentagon (its heads have been generals) and so is our puppet president.

[-] 0 points by FreeNakoula (-29) 5 years ago

It's all Bush's fault. I bet our PeacePrizePrez didn't hear about this spying stuff til you and I did, he read it in the papers! LOL

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

It is really the fault of the leaked memo about the Pentagon-proposed surge in Afghanistan forcing the hand of our peace-prize winning President to send in tens of thousands of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

President Obama was agonizing for many months over the precarious situation in Afghanistan and the Pentagon-proposed surge which was clearly not what his guts told him to do. His slow decision (or indecision for months and months) was sped up by the leaked memo about the Pentagon-proposed surge.

Obama was hyper-sensitized by that bitter experience and his administration became allergic to leaks and broke out frequently in eczema whenever there is any chance of its losing any control. That was how the Obama administration turned into a control freak. Of course, the Congress handing over more and more power to his administration in the name of fighting terrorism was like feeding more drugs to a junkie.

On the surface, granted powers do not have to be used but the law of the universe says that any possible state for any system WILL be visited. It is so true!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

it is the american people's fault. we keep electing these morons to make decision For us.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

All that surveillance didn't stop the Boston Marathon terrorist attack.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

The surveillance methods used could not have stopped the Boston Marathon terrorist attack because it was largely domestic and home-grown and not much out of the ordinary (for example, New Hampshire has legal fireworks for sale, close to where the Boston Marathon bombing occurred). If we want that type of supply to domestic terrorism curtailed, we may need to curtail the sale of fireworks in a state like New Hampshire which has "Live free or die" on its car license plates.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

The ability to legally buy fireworks in New Hampshire is because of the 10th amendment,..........States Rights.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

It is also possible that New Hampshire can outlaw the sale of fireworks by itself to curtail the supply to domestic terrorism.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

Yes New Hampshire can outlaw the sale of fireworks. BUT, I dont think that would stop any terrorist.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

It might have helped in the Boston Marathon bombing. Do not fall prey to the curse of dichotomy: if we cannot do 100%, we should do 0%. There is the possibility of making terrorism difficult without making it impossible.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

For people who are intent in engaging in criminal activities, laws are meaningless.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

To them perhaps but breaking laws can have consequences that even they cannot ignore and will understand the meanings of.

Remember though that laws are not necessarily lawful or even desirable to be enforced sometimes so yes, the stipulated consequences may not accrue to the lawbreakers sometimes, in service to justice, fairness, or grace. That is not a quirk in our judicial system. It may just be discretion which should be well known to all long-time law enforcers when the lawbreakers are given a break. Of course, too much discretion too often can smack of arbitrariness which is a definite no-no.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

Ist degree murder is against the law. It doesnt stop people from doing it.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

Yes, but that does not mean that we cannot impose penalties. Laws are in general rather blunt instruments in service of simulated justice. Intelligent law enforcers can impart finesse to them but that obviously must be done with great restraint, not arbitrarily, not in service of bribes but in service of a greater good.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

Okay, great so we choose to live free and perhaps let some die -- it is perfectly fine with me because the U.S. is the third most populous country in the world.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

There is no such thing as 100% security and safety.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 5 years ago

Precisely. Only fools would go for 100% security and safety because there are always tradeoffs involved. We can protect a particular place to extremely high-level of security and safety but then nearly nobody can get in and out of it anytime soon or fast. It also becomes a real death trap when the extremely low-probability case of its having been breached becomes reality.

The U.S. populace is immature in this respect and often falls for the politicians' pandering to their cravings for 100%. In the U.S., we have 100% pure orange juice fortified with calcium. If calcium was put in, it cannot be 100% PURE orange juice and 100% pure orange juice CANNOT be fortified with calcium. We fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent another 9/11-like attack and killed far more of our own people (mostly warriors) than another 9/11-like attack would have killed (not to mention other people and the treasure and wounded involved).

[-] 0 points by lester06 (28) 5 years ago

Of course not, it was a false flag attack to panic us to ask for more protection (i.e., to have more of our freedoms taken away).

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

I agree.

[-] -3 points by polytop (-106) 5 years ago

Please. Stop with the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. If the government wants to take away your freedom, it doesn't need anything like the Boston Marathon. They have the power to do it anytime for any reason they want. It would make no sense to kill American citizens on American soil for that. Too dangerous to get caught, and absolutely useless. Stop listening to Alex Jones.

[-] 1 points by lester06 (28) 5 years ago

9/11 and its three thousand deaths set this whole cascading loss of American freedoms going. 9/11 of course was another governmental false flag attack. You are absolutely, totally wrong, killing American citizens has aided the powers-that-be aims tremendously.

Alex Jones speaks only for himself. Some even think he is a gubmint paid dissenter, paid to cast conspiracy researchers in a bad light.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 5 years ago

They are doing it incrimentally. if done all at once there would be a civil war,....................many , many people own guns and will not just give up and give in.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

no one I know

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Good luck getting a few here to realize it.

Some on the right and some on the left will simply never learn. Unfortunately, they are usually the loudest voices in the room, and what our media activists- errrr......journalists, cater to.

Keep the divide going. Keep the people scared. Keep the people thinking they have NO chance at creating anything on their own.