Fine.

I linked the other day to a story in the NYT in which a former Stasi Lieutenant Colonel made the comparison (adding admiringly that the NSA was doing it on a scale his old outfit only dreamed of). So are you saying that we oughtn't make the comparison because some people might be offended or have their fee-fees hurt? Geez, man, if the jackboot fits...

What needs to be changed? How about we find out where someone has hidden the Fourth Amendment, and put it back in the Bill of Rights? How about deciding that "preventing another 9/11" isn't worth living under High Brezhnevism, or at least how about having that national conversation? Suppose we entertain the possibility that there's no guarantee that these intrusive surveillances will always always be conducted by blameless, disinterested civil servants without political agendas? I mean, geez, the White House—this White House—went trolling through phone records (mere metadata folks, nothing to see here, move along) of reporters hoping to find links to leaky executive branch munchkins. Even if you trust Obama with these tools, these powers (and he has demonstrated to my dissatisfaction that he is either disinclined or unable to prevent the abuses we know about, much less the larger abuses I do not doubt have yet to be revealed), do you want them left lying around to be picked up by President Ted Cruz?

This is very, very bad stuff. We had a few previews of how bad it might be during the Cheney Shogunate. If you review the Brandon Mayfield case and conclude that because the feds subsequently "apologized" and hence "the system works," then there's no hope for you. If the Spanish authorities hadn't screamed bloody murder on the purported print match, he'd have spent much, much longer in the hole. There was a supposed case of father-and-son "terrorists" in California in 2005. I know someone closely conversant with the case (I will not further identify the individual, but s/he was at that time in a position to make this pronouncement with authority) who asserted, with real anguish, that the two were "railroaded."

Forget whether the indignation is righteous or not: it is justified. And I will say again that Manning and Snowden and even the appalling self-promoting Greenwald have behaved more honorably with respect the the Constitution* of the United States of America than have any of their persecutors up to and including the President.

cordially,

*Speaking of which, much has been made of Manning "violating his oath." Does anyone know offhand whether he swore to protect and defend Army Intelligence, or the Constitution? Seems to me it would make a difference.

Post #379,683 by Another Scott 8/21/13 11:55:14 AM Reply	Fine. I dunno. I think it's more productive to say what needs to be changed than to get peoples' back's up by calling them Stasi and the like. Which reminds me, again, of http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=379228 Righteous indignation is righteous. It doesn't usually get much done though. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,688 by rcareaga 8/21/13 12:41:24 PM Reply	But Scott... I linked the other day to a story in the NYT in which a former Stasi Lieutenant Colonel made the comparison (adding admiringly that the NSA was doing it on a scale his old outfit only dreamed of). So are you saying that we oughtn't make the comparison because some people might be offended or have their fee-fees hurt? Geez, man, if the jackboot fits... What needs to be changed? How about we find out where someone has hidden the Fourth Amendment, and put it back in the Bill of Rights? How about deciding that "preventing another 9/11" isn't worth living under High Brezhnevism, or at least how about having that national conversation? Suppose we entertain the possibility that there's no guarantee that these intrusive surveillances will always always be conducted by blameless, disinterested civil servants without political agendas? I mean, geez, the White House—this White House—went trolling through phone records (mere metadata folks, nothing to see here, move along) of reporters hoping to find links to leaky executive branch munchkins. Even if you trust Obama with these tools, these powers (and he has demonstrated to my dissatisfaction that he is either disinclined or unable to prevent the abuses we know about, much less the larger abuses I do not doubt have yet to be revealed), do you want them left lying around to be picked up by President Ted Cruz? This is very, very bad stuff. We had a few previews of how bad it might be during the Cheney Shogunate. If you review the Brandon Mayfield case and conclude that because the feds subsequently "apologized" and hence "the system works," then there's no hope for you. If the Spanish authorities hadn't screamed bloody murder on the purported print match, he'd have spent much, much longer in the hole. There was a supposed case of father-and-son "terrorists" in California in 2005. I know someone closely conversant with the case (I will not further identify the individual, but s/he was at that time in a position to make this pronouncement with authority) who asserted, with real anguish, that the two were "railroaded." Forget whether the indignation is righteous or not: it is justified. And I will say again that Manning and Snowden and even the appalling self-promoting Greenwald have behaved more honorably with respect the the Constitution* of the United States of America than have any of their persecutors up to and including the President. cordially, *Speaking of which, much has been made of Manning "violating his oath." Does anyone know offhand whether he swore to protect and defend Army Intelligence, or the Constitution? Seems to me it would make a difference.
Post #379,691 by Another Scott 8/21/13 1:06:09 PM Reply	Thank you for the thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

Welcome to IWETHEY!