@enoch @Fletch @Yogi

I've done a complete turn around on this issue for sure. After doing some reading, I believe this to be much ado about nothing. I know I'm taking an extremely unpopular position here, siding against the left, the right, the media and videosift, essentially siding up with Obama and David Simon. Taking an unpopular position has never stopped me before. /vanity

I believe wiretaps are an important tool for law enforcement/counter terrorism, but only if there are proper checks and balances in place to make sure that these searches are constitutionally 'reasonable' and not a means of abuse.

Contrary to media hysteria, Obama can't listen in on your phone calls or read your sexts without a court order. That warrant has been the go to check and balance for decades, I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient today.

BUT IT'S ALL DONE IN SECRECY. Yeah, that's kind of the point of a wiretap.

BUT WHAT IF THIS POWER IS ABUSED? Then we need to reassess checks, balances, oversight, etc...

My questiosn to you:

Do you all think that surveillance should be a legal tool in criminal investigations?

If yes, what changes do we make to current policy without rendering surveillance toothless?

I'm open to any arguments you want to pose or any reading material you want to share. Am I missing something here? Change my mind.

From the blog of David Simon (creator of the Wire)

07
JUN
Is it just me or does the entire news media — as well as all the agitators and self-righteous bloviators on both sides of the aisle — not understand even the rudiments of electronic intercepts and the manner in which law enforcement actually uses such intercepts? It would seem so.
–
Because the national eruption over the rather inevitable and understandable collection of all raw data involving telephonic and internet traffic by Americans would suggest that much of our political commentariat, many of our news gatherers and a lot of average folk are entirely without a clue.

You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about. And you would think that rather than a legal court order which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame.

Nope. Nothing of the kind. Though apparently, the U.K.’s Guardian, which broke this faux-scandal, is unrelenting in its desire to scale the heights of self-congratulatory hyperbole. Consider this from Glenn Greenwald, the author of the piece: “What this court order does that makes it so striking is that it’s not directed at any individual…it’s collecting the phone records of every single customer of Verizon business and finding out every single call they’ve made…it’s indiscriminate and it’s sweeping.”

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff.

http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

Sorry Mr. Fisk, I can't upvote this. This scandal is starting to feel just as bogus as the rest of them.

I read some interesting commentary from Divid Simon. (creator of the show The Wire and a fairly knowledgable guy on the subject of wiretaps.)

"Is it just me or does the entire news media — as well as all the agitators and self-righteous bloviators on both sides of the aisle — not understand even the rudiments of electronic intercepts and the manner in which law enforcement actually uses such intercepts? It would seem so.
–
Because the national eruption over the rather inevitable and understandable collection of all raw data involving telephonic and internet traffic by Americans would suggest that much of our political commentariat, many of our news gatherers and a lot of average folk are entirely without a clue.

You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about. And you would think that rather than a legal court order which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame.

Nope. Nothing of the kind. Though apparently, the U.K.’s Guardian, which broke this faux-scandal, is unrelenting in its desire to scale the heights of self-congratulatory hyperbole. Consider this from Glenn Greenwald, the author of the piece: “What this court order does that makes it so striking is that it’s not directed at any individual…it’s collecting the phone records of every single customer of Verizon business and finding out every single call they’ve made…it’s indiscriminate and it’s sweeping.”

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff."

The rest is here: http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

*promote

From revolution to institution. Welcome to the monarchy.

Culongas and Boobongos?

YOU MONSTER!

This isn't change at all. It's business as usual.


Here are the folks who've kept this legal: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

Here is a list of all congressmen who voted to extend the patriot act:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

Number of times congress has tried to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act: 37
Number of times congress has tried to repeal the Patriot Act: 0

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Rob-Swanson-meets-Cersei

I'm conflicted. I see both sides to this.

I want to see corruption exposed, but I don't think leaking classified information that does not expose wrongdoing is necessarily a good thing.

He definitely violated his contract, but he is clearly no traitor. His defense is claiming he was naive, but well intentioned. He even made a guilty plea for a lesser charge. I wish they'd just taken that charge and given him a greatly reduced sentence.

I think just about everyone can agree that certain things should be kept secret, such as private information about citizens, names of undercover agents, information about witness relocation, sensitive international negotiations, nuclear codes, strategic military information, etc. so the question is:; where do you draw the line?

I see some major crossover potential here.

This is so sleazy, and it's the exact same schtick the Republicans used against Clinton.

1. Manufacture a bunch of half baked scandals.
2. Link them all to the President, whether he was involved or not.
3. Launch them all at the same time so they are hard to respond to.
4. Describe them with minimum detail and maximum hyperbole.
5..Cross your fingers that the public won't scrutinize your claims.
6. Use manufactured outrage to try and boost your corrupt, floundering, obstructionist party in the upcoming elections.

Most of these manufactured scandals have been debunked, or are a lot more nuanced than portrayed by this GOPer, but many will just watch this video and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, unemployment remains high, the infrastructure crumbles, gridlock keeps the congress from fixing the economy,, anonymous corporate cash floods our elections, economic disparity grows, there is still no accountability on Wall Street, the drone program continues to kill innocents and Bradley Manning sits on trial.

Blackfish singing in the holding pool.
Take these broken fins and learn to swim
All your life.......