Say what you want about George W.

[TerryMathews]

Come on man, you can't be serious. How on Earth would any of us know what they were monitoring her phone? Having insight into the conversations of another head of government is simply an intrinsically valuable thing to have.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for or against here. Do you not want our intelligence services to attempt to intercept the communications of foreign governments? You claimed this was indiscriminate, but from the information available it was the exact opposite of indiscriminate.

The problem with Hoover was that he frequently targeted innocent Americans for monitoring and investigation without a legitimate purpose. Monitoring what a foreign head of government does is a legitimate purpose in and of itself.

I want us to go back to pre-2000 spying, with specific objectives and a respect for privacy.

 

[fskimospy]

I want us to go back to pre-2000 spying, with specific objectives and a respect for privacy.

What does that have to do with Angela Merkel????

Do you think we didn't try to tap the phones of foreign leaders pre-2000?

 

[TerryMathews]

What does that have to do with Angela Merkel????

Do you think we didn't try to tap the phones of foreign leaders pre-2000?

What specific objective could we have been researching that required continuous surveillance from the time before she was a political candidate until today?

 

[fskimospy]

What specific objective could we have been researching that required continuous surveillance from the time before she was a political candidate until today?

The objective of better understanding the position of Germany's opposition party and their head of government. Seriously, you can't see the a tremendous benefit to the US that comes from knowing what the head of the world's 4th largest economy is thinking? As I said earlier, that is intrinsically valuable.

If we had the capability and resources (and maybe we do!) we should be actively attempting to wiretap the leadership of every single country on the planet. Also, you appear to be arguing that pre-2000 the US would not have done something like this, but a quick look at history should show you that's not the case.

 

[ivwshane]

Hmm...if we only had a president that would do exactly what terry wanted...

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency ended a program used to spy on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a number of other world leaders after an internal Obama administration review started this summer revealed to the White House the existence of the operation, U.S. officials said.
Officials said the internal review turned up NSA monitoring of some 35 world leaders, in the U.S. government's first public acknowledgment that it tapped the phones of world leaders. European leaders have joined international outrage over revelations of U.S. surveillance of Ms. Merkel's phone and of NSA's monitoring of telephone call data in France.

The White House cut off some monitoring programs after learning of them, including the one tracking Ms. Merkel and some other world leaders, a senior U.S. official said. Other programs have been slated for termination but haven't been phased out completely yet, officials said.

I'll post it again but I doubt it will get read since it goes against people desired beliefs:
http://m.us.wsj.com/article_email/S...0180138036-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwNzEyNDcyWj?mobile=y

 

[TerryMathews]

The objective of better understanding the position of Germany's opposition party and their head of government. Seriously, you can't see the a tremendous benefit to the US that comes from knowing what the head of the world's 4th largest economy is thinking? As I said earlier, that is intrinsically valuable.

If we had the capability and resources (and maybe we do!) we should be actively attempting to wiretap the leadership of every single country on the planet. Also, you appear to be arguing that pre-2000 the US would not have done something like this, but a quick look at history should show you that's not the case.

Ah yes comrade now I see the error of my ways. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

I think pre-2000, someone would have laid out a case for wiretapping specific individuals, and had a specific objective or duration in mind. That is clearly not the case here in an organization where analysts are free to wiretap on a whim anyone including their ex-girlfriends.

You keep misrepresenting my argument, and I think its intentionally. I don't have an issue with us spying on foreign leaders. I do take exception to the open-ended manner that we are doing it in.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah yes comrade now I see the error of my ways. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

I think pre-2000, someone would have laid out a case for wiretapping specific individuals, and had a specific objective or duration in mind. That is clearly not the case here in an organization where analysts are free to wiretap on a whim anyone including their ex-girlfriends.

You keep misrepresenting my argument, and I think its intentionally. I don't have an issue with us spying on foreign leaders. I do take exception to the open-ended manner that we are doing it in.

No idea what the 1984 quote would have to do with this.

What is the basis for your argument that we only wiretapped foreign officials for specific objectives or for an explicitly limited period of time before 2000? More importantly, what would the US gain by limiting its spying efforts to such an extent?

Furthermore, why do you have a problem with us spying on foreign leaders in an open ended manner? You know that foreign powers are spying on us constantly as well, right? They certainly have no such compunction, so why would we tie our hands?

 

[TerryMathews]

No idea what the 1984 quote would have to do with this.

What is the basis for your argument that we only wiretapped foreign officials for specific objectives or for an explicitly limited period of time before 2000? More importantly, what would the US gain by limiting its spying efforts to such an extent?

Furthermore, why do you have a problem with us spying on foreign leaders in an open ended manner? You know that foreign powers are spying on us constantly as well, right? They certainly have no such compunction, so why would we tie our hands?

You get dirty when you lie with hogs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol! More dishonest posting from you? Who would have thought?

Are you really this stupid?

Spying program starts in 2000, NSA goes to the president and says, we have reason to believe we should be spying on such and such, should we do it? The president says yes.

2010 comes around and the NSA says, hey mr prez we have this spying program going on for these reasons, should we continue it? The president says, well the reasons you gave sound good, go ahead and continue the program.

Later in the presidents term, the president or congress says, hey I think we need to look at our spying operations and make sure they align with our values. Some don't and are stopped or are asked to be shut down.

2013 comes around and details of the spying are leaked, hyabusa gets butthurt because he doesn't like how the sausage is being made and blames Obama for not knowing what he wasn't told. Apparently hyabusa believes one knows what they do not know. He also believes that even if the president isn't ware of something, if he doesn't stop it, the prez then therefor supports it. Brilliant logic once again!

You lost credibility when you said Obama had no control and now say he does, but please continue. Want to quote how the President doesn't have any say in what intel agencies do, but it's Congress which controls them in spite of explicit statements found that the President both controls and directs them?

You lost. Man up.

 

[ivwshane]

You lost credibility when you said Obama had no control and now say he does, but please continue. Want to quote how the President doesn't have any say in what intel agencies do, but it's Congress which controls them in spite of explicit statements found that the President both controls and directs them?

You lost. Man up.

Never said that. Keep lying. I've explained to you multiple times how the prez interacts with different agencies and their roles in the deciscion making process.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Never said that. Keep lying. I've explained to you multiple times how the prez interacts with different agencies and their roles in the deciscion making process.

Wrong on every count. The CIA reports to congress as does the NSA, both the CIA and NSA advise the president. Operations of both are approved by the congress and and details are usually kept on a need to know basis, including for the president. If the CIA or NSA came to the president about international spying it was done in an advisory fashion with details only given when asked

Right there you say it's Congress who directs and controls. The President is informed on a need to know basis according to you. So the President directs the NSA to tell him what's going on and they don't have to because he really doesn't direct or control them. You missed the whole chain.

From the link you ignored

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the United States government official – subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President

 

[TerryMathews]

Right there you say it's Congress who directs and controls. The President is informed on a need to know basis according to you. So the President directs the NSA to tell him what's going on and they don't have to because he really doesn't direct or control them. You missed the whole chain.

From the link you ignored

In his world, Obama is only responsible for the good decisions.

ACA: All him.
Domestic spying: Damn Congress.

 

[ivwshane]

Right there you say it's Congress who directs and controls. The President is informed on a need to know basis according to you. So the President directs the NSA to tell him what's going on and they don't have to because he really doesn't direct or control them. You missed the whole chain.

From the link you ignored

Interesting, the word "no" appears zero times in the post you quoted, the word "control" appears zero times, the word "directs" appears zero times as well. Do you know what logical fallacy you are using? I bet you do! You use it in a majority of your posts

Did you read the story I posted? If you did you would have a real world example of exactly what I was talking about.

Or maybe you just are incapable of understanding how time works.

2000- spying program starts/changes
2010- Obama notified and approves of a broad level spying program
2013- Obama has spy programs audited and has the ones that don't fit his admins values stopped or put on hold
10/2013 hayabusa outraged that Obama spied on foreign officials, with zero reasons for his outrage (I'm guessing as I have no idea what your point is. My point, btw, is that you are utterly clueless on how our government works and I use the facts from this current event as my example while you argue a straw man).

 

[ivwshane]

In his world, Obama is only responsible for the good decisions.

ACA: All him.
Domestic spying: Damn Congress.

Wrong again dumbass!

The ACA was all congress, Reid and pelosi to be exact. Domestic spying has its roots in the bush admin (as far as we know in terms of facts and not speculation) and Obama has approved PRISM, so he gets the blame for that as well.

What the fuck either of those have to do with spying on foreign officials/targets is beyond me but I suspect that when you can't argue your point you bring up other non related shit into the mix.

I'm curious though, when were you for Obama for stopping/limiting spy programs before you were against such programs?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In his world, Obama is only responsible for the good decisions.

ACA: All him.
Domestic spying: Damn Congress.

He shot himself in the foot when he tried to convince us that the President has no control over the intelligence agencies, that it was all Congress. It's not like Obama could have said "Stop that". Oh wait, according to him they did. Now I'll have to warn you that a time will come when the Republicans take over again and when they do I'll beat up on them just as badly as I did with Bush over all this. I don't care who is in office. If something strikes me as wrong the D or R after their name doesn't matter.

In fact I've stated some things about the changes instituted in the prior administration, namely warrantless wiretaps. There should be no such things. FISA allowed a tap to be initiated and the only "problem" was to apply for a warrant within 3 days AFTER THE FACT. How that is seen as a "you just want to pick on Obama" is beyond me. Yes, I am against Obama who embraced a wrong and has acted to further it. The main effort all along has been to mitigate or defend that which the President has deemed fit to use, and to say he has no or minimal impact is a lie.

If he too wants us tapped, I wish he would just come out and say it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wrong again dumbass!

The ACA was all congress, Reid and pelosi to be exact. Domestic spying has its roots in the bush admin (as far as we know in terms of facts and not speculation) and Obama has approved PRISM, so he gets the blame for that as well.

What the fuck either of those have to do with spying on foreign officials/targets is beyond me but I suspect that when you can't argue your point you bring up other non related shit into the mix.

I'm curious though, when were for Obama for stopping/limiting spy programs before you were against such programs?

Last first. I was hopping mad about all of it. I still am. That it's Obama, Bush or your maternal grandmother makes no difference.

As for the rest I have no idea why you cannot make a link between three entities. 16 intelligence agencies report to the DIA who is under the authority, direction and control of the President. That's how Bush got away with so much with Iraq. Were you for that as well? Do you now hold him blameless because he wasn't allowed to know what was going on, that Congress didn't let him on things? The the NSA in spite of being controlled by superiors of the executive branch do not need to answer to him? That they are permitted, apparently by Congress, to deceive him?

Clearly those three words do not imply in any way that President is a passive figure who the Congress allows to know through the NSA what he can and cannot do, and you did put it on Congress. That part of you argument is shot.

So answer at least this. If I objected to the changes of wiretapping to allow for no warrants when Bush was in office, how is it that when I object in the same way that it's now about just Obama and what he's done?

For me there's an added problem of trust. Obama is in office and what's going on now is about him, and sorry if you don't like that. The DEA has been using parallel construction based on information obtained to go after citizens for criminal matters. It's a neat trick, but no matter how you slice it the information has been used against Americans, but Obama directly said the opposite. The information you claimed that showed that Obama wasn't aware came from those who work for him. OK. Maybe he didn't know, but there are also statements to the contrary. Ultimately we'll not know, but the audacity to lie in such a way or at best to be so incompetent that he made statements of assurance demonstrably false out of ignorance isn't good.

Now if I am hard on Obama (and I am), but have been consistent for well more than a decade, why am I picking on him and not the issue? I'm not so good that I could predict in 2001 that Obama would take office after Bush screwed the pooch so badly. For future reference a hypothetical, when a US citizen was taken on US soil and held without due Constitutional rights by Bush I was livid. If it were to be found out that Obama were to have done the same I would pounce on him. Would you then call me one who just picks on O?

And in all this where do you stand on the issues, not who is or is not to blame? Should the government be allowed to do away with warrants? Should evidence be allowed without informing the defendant that no warrant was used? Do you think the DOJ should be using whatever construct it can to prevent the public from knowing whether illegal surveillance is occurring on us here? Forget your politics, where do you stand?

 

[werepossum]

Please, snowden made the US look bad because he released sources and methods. That is traitorous.

Our behavior is nothing more than any other single nation on this planet does. We just happen to do it better than most.

Germans are proud people but very naive as to how they are fucking the rest of europe. It's funny to watch all of these Pols blast out their faux righteous indignation. Merkel doesn't have shit to talk about. She's the one using the Euro to beat the fuck out of the peripheral countries and then force them to mortgage their entire countries. Meanwhile Germany's unemployment rate is one of, if not the, lowest in the Eurozone precisely because of the Euro. Germans are almost utterly ignorant of how their good economy is screwing the rest of Europe while they extend trade credit in unlimited amounts. All so the Pols in germany can stay in power.

If the Eurozone population knew the whole story behind the massive wealth going from the periphery to the core, all because of the Euro, they'd be pretty pissed too. But they pols don't like to talk about that either.

Yeah . . . I'm pretty sure Merkel is pissed BECAUSE we tapped her cell phone, not HOW we tapped her cell phone.

Wrong on every count. The CIA reports to congress as does the NSA, both the CIA and NSA advise the president. Operations of both are approved by the congress and and details are usually kept on a need to know basis, including for the president. If the CIA or NSA came to the president about international spying it was done in an advisory fashion with details only given when asked.

Pretty standard stuff if you understood how our government works

Obama must be glad that there is at least one idiot who buys his story that the entire Executive Branch actually works for Congress and he only learns about what they are doing when he reads it in the paper.

Did you read the fucking part about the DNI's primary duty is to advise the president? Of course you didn't!

Which would of course explain why Obama "discovers" this by reading the paper (as he "discovers" everything, even the failure of his signature legislation.) They don't work for him, they merely advise him.

Apparently by writing articles in newspapers.

 

[Fern]

Spying on world leaders? I think the real change here is that those world leaders feel comfortable publicly criticizing Obama for it. He's turned into a pinata and gets no respect.

Fern

 

[LegendKiller]

Yeah . . . I'm pretty sure Merkel is pissed BECAUSE we tapped her cell phone, not HOW we tapped her cell phone.


Obama must be glad that there is at least one idiot who buys his story that the entire Executive Branch actually works for Congress and he only learns about what they are doing when he reads it in the paper.


Which would of course explain why Obama "discovers" this by reading the paper (as he "discovers" everything, even the failure of his signature legislation.) They don't work for him, they merely advise him.

Apparently by writing articles in newspapers.

Sources and methods is how we get information (ie tapping the phone). The intel that comes out of that isn't something Snowden released, he released HOW we got the info.

 

[fskimospy]

Spying on world leaders? I think the real change here is that those world leaders feel comfortable publicly criticizing Obama for it. He's turned into a pinata and gets no respect.

Fern

When have world leaders been uncomfortable criticizing the US? No time recently, that's for sure. Do you not remember what other countries said to Bush?

 

[Matt1970]

The objective of better understanding the position of Germany's opposition party and their head of government. Seriously, you can't see the a tremendous benefit to the US that comes from knowing what the head of the world's 4th largest economy is thinking? As I said earlier, that is intrinsically valuable.

If we had the capability and resources (and maybe we do!) we should be actively attempting to wiretap the leadership of every single country on the planet. Also, you appear to be arguing that pre-2000 the US would not have done something like this, but a quick look at history should show you that's not the case.

Germany is our ally. What the fuck is wrong with you? We aren't listening in on a 15 year old's conversation to see what they are doing when they go out.

 

[fskimospy]

Germany is our ally. What the fuck is wrong with you? We aren't listening in on a 15 year old's conversation to see what they are doing when they go out.

Wait, you think we don't spy on our allies and they don't spy on us?

Are you seriously that naive?

 

[LegendKiller]

Wait, you think we don't spy on our allies and they don't spy on us?

Are you seriously that naive?

Yes, he is.

 

[davmat787]

So if people are naïve that they don't know the NSA is not just spying on foreign entities, but mandated to, what does that make a US President that is (supposedly) unaware of these activities?

 

[ivwshane]

So if people are naïve that they don't know the NSA is not just spying on foreign entities, but mandated to, what does that make a US President that is (supposedly) unaware of these activities?

It makes you an idiot. He approved a broad plan to spy on foreign targets. He was not given the details on who those targets would be.

It's quite fucking simple! For example:
When the president was presented with the option for a surge, he agrees with it or doesn't based on the info given to him. He isn't made aware of every little detail because it serves no point (unless you think a civilian is better at military tactics than military generals).

It's why a person like colen Powell can be told that Iraq was trying to obtain yellow cake uranium but not know how weak the details of that info was.

Obama is not a espionage specialist nor does he have a background in it so why would he need to know the details of programs? It's irrelevant to his decision making.

It all goes back to how the government works and you guys apparently don't give a shit about it unless you can use it for political reasons.


Would you care to guess what happens when an administration official tries to micromanage an agency because he thinks he knows better than the professionals? See dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Iraq war.