Obama Administration Meltdown Thread

[Pruitt]

I think that Americans are incapable of sustained moral outrage.

How much of this is due to the media manufacturing new "big events" every 48 hours or so, and how much is due to a general laziness in the culture is up for debate.

But if the Vietnam war was happening now, I don't think there'd even be a single memorable protest song written about it.

[howard]

I agree with you, Pruitt. Just to state a point I am sure you are not ignoring, a draft into military service resulting in roughly 10% of age-eligible male citizens serving in uniform has a focusing effect. On protest and music.

[Pruitt]

I agree with you, Pruitt. Just to state a point I am sure you are not ignoring, a draft into military service resulting in roughly 10% of age-eligible male citizens serving in uniform has a focusing effect. On protest and music.

Actually, I completely forgot about the draft - your point is very well taken.

[Scottie]

How much of this is due to the media manufacturing new "big events" every 48 hours or so, and how much is due to a general laziness in the culture is up for debate.

Hand in hand.

If HeyZeus returned to Earth it would get 'round the clock media coverage. For a little while. Then? On to the next big thing. HeyZeus would just be another temporary "trending now". Few days, tops, before it just wasn't headline news any more and humans just took it in stride then moved on to the next story that they won't remember next week.

There's so many possible examples to use. The RedBull Stratos Skydive From Space was back in October. It lit up the Internet. Ask anyone who watched it and raved about it (a) what was the name of the event (b) when did it happen and (c) what was the guy's name that made the jump? I'd be shocked if you found anyone who could answer that. (It's Felix Baumgartner, by the way)

Just like that guy that tightrope walked part of the Grand Canyon last month. Ask around what his name was (Nik Wallenda) and see how many correct answers you get. Millions and millions tuned in at the time. The Media Party wasn't thrilled by it given that Wallenda ceaselessly carried on a conversation with his invisible friend in the sky. So the coverage was edited and limited. Yet that stunt was huge. For a little while.

Now, those two are entertainments. Modern daredevilishness of little merit. What really scares me is that relevant news gets sucked away in the exact same fashion. And it is getting increasingly difficult to keep relevant world events in perspective (and in memory) because of all the lowbrow crap that clobbers them. Every single day the newspapers run a story on what that little douchebieber "did today". Even the best news sources are given to reporting on worthless celebs. Yet, while all that hyper-ephemeral crap is getting thrown at us, there are massively significant events occurring that get hardly any coverage at all.

Last year, rocket scienticians believed Voyager 1 had left the Solar System. Of course, now they're not so sure because, face it, it's really difficult to tell. Nevertheless, a man-made craft actually exiting the solar system and entering the beyondness? That is staggering. Utterly amazing. Once in a lifetime achievement for mankind. Enormous. And the headline lasted a few hours, at best, before some celebretard walked through an airport shirtless and knocked the Voyager story right out of the news.

Think back to the biggest news stories of your lifetime. And ask yourself how long those stories would last today. Back then, the impact was huge. Today? There is hardly any impact. A terrifying airplane crash in San Francisco? Who cares. Some inbred foreign parasites just had a son. What do you think they'll name him!!! OMG!!!

The majority of human beings are horrifically stupid; at best completely shallow. Event-attention spans have been reduced to even less than Sesame Street skit duration.

[The Sybian]

I think that Americans are incapable of sustained moral outrage.

How much of this is due to the media manufacturing new "big events" every 48 hours or so, and how much is due to a general laziness in the culture is up for debate.

But if the Vietnam war was happening now, I don't think there'd even be a single memorable protest song written about it.

The Vietnam War kind if is happening right now. Only protest song I can think of is the Dixie Chicks, and I don't remember the song at all, just that Country Music turned on them for voicing their opinion. I'm guessing there weren't many Lee Greenwoodesque songs supporting the Vietnam War.

[howard]

Only protest song I can think of is the Dixie Chicks, and I don't remember the song at all…

Um, I posted one. Go up four.

I'm guessing there weren't many Lee Greenwoodesque songs supporting the Vietnam War.

Cue the Staff Sergeant:

[degenerasian]

Even the parasites having a son has been forgotten by this weekend. It was a much bigger story when William was born.

[degenerasian]

since we're talking journalism and this could go into the journalism thread.....



What a first question! Soddy interviewer. Rude, ignorant, vindictive. That is what Howard just described above as propaganda.

[Scottie]

Staggeringly stupid first question. Thorough answer leaving no doubt and . . . then the stupid bitch asks the same question AGAIN? Lauren Green: Mopron. I'd wager she's a Christian, probably a born-again or some similar fuckedupness, and was personally offended because a Muslim was writing about Jeeboingboing, her lord'n'savior.

As if there is a whole lot of difference between either the Christian fairytale or the Muslim fairytale.

"Why did you write a book about golf in North America?"
"Well, for starters, I'm a professional golfer who has been playing at the highest level of the game for over twenty years."
"Yes, but you're European. Why would a European golfer write about golf in North America???"

[Johnnie]

Oh man. Edward Snowden's dad's legal counsel just went in on the President: (Check out this PDF file.)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/secti ... /obama.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opening line:

"You are acutely aware that the history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices. As Edmund Burke sermonized, 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

ETA

words. clarity. correctness.

[howard]

Obama Starting to Lose It Over Snowden
Interesting view of events. I could give two fucks about the vote on Amash (had the amendment passed, they would've just twisted arms and revoted in a couple of days, just like TARP), except despite my disinterest I keep noticing Alan Grayson's name popping up here and there in my readings.

[howard]

Fucking liars couldn't even get their cover story straight.

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

Truth on Benghazi: Gun running and abandoning Americans

[Pruitt]

The public tends to view the CIA as they would a group of ninjas - like expert warriors who are experts in stealth and whose plans are infallible.

The reality seems to be closer to the Agency being yet another incompetent government bureaucracy - obsessed with secrecy and prone to the same political infighting as say the EPA or Department of Justice.

I urge you to read this book:

It was a real eye-opener for me and it shows the idiocy of the CIA. The poorly planned plots, the bureaucratic infighting and the general ridiculousness of the organization. And it is not a rant by a conspiracy-theorist that is filled with unsubstantiated allegations. It is a great work of investigative journalism and history that won the National Book Award.

Read it and NOTHING the CIA does will ever surprise you again.

[howard]

Ayup. Read it a few years ago when it was published. Mister, we could use a man like Eisenhower again.

[howard]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howard]

2:53

[The Sybian]

The FISA Courts should never have to turn down a request for a warrant, because the law (even pre-9/11 laws) allow for you to spy first, and then use the surveillance obtained to retroactively get the warrant. The Federal Government has been doing this since the 1978, if not longer.

[Steve of phpBB]

It gets even better ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 9R20130805" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howard]

Obama: ‘We don’t have a domestic spying program’

[Johnnie]

Russia says Obama hurting himself by canceling summit over Snowden

I remember way back when Obama was elected every Republican wanted him to fail (or maybe I'm just subsituting Rush Limbaugh's words for the GOP's thoughts and making a broad stroke on the word 'every'). Well, he's basically failing now, but rooting for this failure -- and being distinctively open about it -- makes you look like you're siding with a 'traitor.'

Irony is dish best served cold. Or something.

Then there's also this:

US Government War On Hackers Backfires: Now Top Hackers Won't Work With US Government

Come hack me, bro.

[howard]

Michelle Obama: I won't seek presidency
Because the idea that someone is qualified to be president because their spouse had the job is fucking ridiculous. Or their father. Y'all know I'm equal opportunity.

[howard]

NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of Times, Contrary to Official Claims

Bullshit. They did not violate rules. They broke laws. They violated rights of American citizens. Rights guaranteed and protected by laws.

And 'officials', employees of you and me, lied about it.

It really is a shame nobody gives a shit about this. I did not think the American people would stand for this. I stand corrected.

[Steve of phpBB]

NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of Times, Contrary to Official Claims

Bullshit. They did not violate rules. They broke laws. They violated rights of American citizens. Rights guaranteed and protected by laws.

And 'officials', employees of you and me, lied about it.

It really is a shame nobody gives a shit about this. I did not think the American people would stand for this. I stand corrected.

Is it clear that any *constitutional* rights actually were violated? (I've been thankfully out of the loop for the past few weeks.)

E-mail and cell phone and GPS searches seem obviously unconstitutional, but then you read the actual Supreme Court precedents, and you find out that they are not unconstitutional at all. The Supreme Court holds that if you voluntarily give information to a third party, such as the phone company, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, and as such it is fair game for the government. The Fifth Circuit, using exactly this reasoning, just held a couple of weeks ago that a warrant is not required for the government to obtain cell phone tracking data showing the subject's location, even when the subject was not using the phone.

So if the Fourth Amendment does not apply, then it comes down to what is permitted and what is forbidden by the Stored Communications Act, the Last Refuge of Scoundrels Act, and other laws. Which are all way too technical to get anyone's attention.

As I've said before in some of these other issues, I do think the game is turning. Once all the old-man judges and Senators either die off or realize that these rulings will apply to their own emails to their mistresses, they both will pay more attention.

[Pruitt]

Hope I don't offend anyone...

The USA was once the bastion of freedom. The model for many other countries to aspire to.

In the last decade, it has become a nation that condones the use of torture and that spies on its own citizens - even when they have not broken any laws. And a country that feels it is justified in murdering its own citizens without due process.

It is sickening to watch this occur - partially because there will be other western nations that now feel they can emulate this governmental behaviour, and also because it flies in the face of the values that the country supposedly stands for.

Just unbelievable.

[howard]

Steve, these involved monitoring of actual cell phone conversations. As far as I know, interception and monitoring of cellular conversations require a warrant. I have to disagree that the supreme court holds that mere use of a telephone, cellular or wired, constitutes consent for the government to listen in.

I have actually read many relevant court rulings. Including the recent Fifth Circuit ruling, which regarded metadata, not actual conversations.

Of course these behaviors constitute violation of rights protected by the constitution, and the whole body of wiretap laws that require warrants based upon just cause. The violations of laws were not defined by me; they were defined, counted, and tallied in this document compiled by the NSA themselves. Admissions of crimes. Violations of laws in place to protect rights. That Fifth Circuit ruling and the other rulings regarding metadata, location data, et al have zero relevance.

Sorry.

[Steve of phpBB]

I definitely agree that if we are talking about actual content of calls, that's under the Fourth Amendment. I was under the impression they were monitoring who was calling whom, when, for how long, etc.

Do phone companies record the contents of calls? If not, how can NSA get them from their data storage?

[Gunpowder]

Can't something that the Supreme Court says is constitutional still be kind of unconstitutional? Like they could theoretically just justify whatever they'd like in lawyerese, no? We once ruled that people are 3/5 of people (which if you ask me is too much for those people but whatever).

[howard]

Can't something that the Supreme Court says is constitutional still be kind of unconstitutional?

Absolutely. It is just nine guys and gals, their behavior driven by many forces. Truth and Justice only intermittently are predominant forces driving their behavior. Those currently in a bear market; dogma, politics and protecting the unjust status-quo are kinda dominating these days.

There is no absolute when it comes to constitutionality. There is no absolute when it comes to the actions of this court, or (I suppose) any court.

The court has a long history of doing fucked-up things, only to correct them decades later.

Steve, most of the yammering regarding the NSA in recent weeks has regarded metadata. This has been the center of the defense of NSA behavior; of course this defense (that all they do is collect metadata) is complete bullshit; it serves as a nice distraction from what they are really doing. This latest Snowden release is hard evidence of the bullshit. There has been plenty of softer evidence over the past months, but nothing bites as hard as their own data.

I hope you are right that the worm is turning.

[Steve of phpBB]

Can't something that the Supreme Court says is constitutional still be kind of unconstitutional? Like they could theoretically just justify whatever they'd like in lawyerese, no? We once ruled that people are 3/5 of people (which if you ask me is too much for those people but whatever).

The three-fifths thing was clearly constitutional. Since it was in the Constitution.

[howard]

I'll agree with you laird, that 3/5ths is about right for us people. As long as my tax bill is similarly apportioned.

It is getting worse and worse:
Feds Threaten To Arrest Lavabit Founder For Shutting Down His Service

If you are not familiar with the events of last week surrounding Lavabit and Silent Circle, please google and learn. Silent Circle is one of our vendors; this shook up my (new) industry. Wonder what next week will bring.

edit: apportioned, not appropriated. although both work.

[rass]

The Brits detain the partner of one the reporters primarily responsible for breaking the Snowden story, just because they can.

According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders" (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, "most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour." An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours.

The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name.

Worse, they kept David detained right up until the last minute: for the full 9 hours, something they very rarely do. Only at the last minute did they finally release him. We spent all day - as every hour passed - worried that he would be arrested and charged under a terrorism statute. This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us working journalistically on reporting on the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ.

Before letting him go, they seized numerous possessions of his, including his laptop, his cellphone, various video game consoles, DVDs, USB sticks, and other materials. They did not say when they would return any of it, or if they would.

I bet this isn't going to play too well.

[howard]

Except that nobody gives a shit. This'll come and go in a couple of days. As completely fucked up as this action is.

[rass]

Except that nobody gives a shit.

Swamp as my witness, I had originally ended my post with a similar comment but then removed it because I didn't want to step on your line.

[howard]

No copyright here. Needs to be repeated.

[Steve of phpBB]

Steve, these involved monitoring of actual cell phone conversations. As far as I know, interception and monitoring of cellular conversations require a warrant. I have to disagree that the supreme court holds that mere use of a telephone, cellular or wired, constitutes consent for the government to listen in.

I have actually read many relevant court rulings. Including the recent Fifth Circuit ruling, which regarded metadata, not actual conversations.

Of course these behaviors constitute violation of rights protected by the constitution, and the whole body of wiretap laws that require warrants based upon just cause. The violations of laws were not defined by me; they were defined, counted, and tallied in this document compiled by the NSA themselves. Admissions of crimes. Violations of laws in place to protect rights. That Fifth Circuit ruling and the other rulings regarding metadata, location data, et al have zero relevance.

Sorry.

OK, I read the audit report posted by the Washington Post, and I didn't see any references to any listening in on actual phone conversations (which, as I said above, I do agree is a constitutional violation). Maybe the stuff about actually listening in to phone calls was in another document or report?

Most of the "incidents" listed in the audit report were not actually violations of Wiretap laws like FISA or the FISA Amendments, but of an executive order. It looks like for the most part, we have a report listing a bunch of garden variety fuckups - which apparently were caught and reported because the NSA has review and audit procedures. Can anyone here be shocked if it turns out that a government agency is not error-free, but is only 99.99% error free?

I think the truly frightening thing about the audit report is not that the NSA's people occasionally fucked up and illegally kept tabs on cell phones after a (legally) targeted foreigner entered the US - which is what a lot of the incidents were. I think the frightening thing is how much surveillance does not constitute an "incident" because it is legal and went according to plan. As the saying goes, the real scandal is what's legal.

[howard]

Steve, I just read it too. It is not the audit report--it is an executive summary.

Pretty clear they are talking about much more than metadata.

Use of linguists, just to cite one example, is used to translate human language, not machine language. Sure, the spook bureaucratese language used in the audit report is tough to penetrate, but it's there. Monitored phone calls, in that report. Clouded by weird technical terms ('selectors', 'detasking', '

The '99.9% error free' meme is more bullshit. A single incident (of the 2,000 or so in one month) often had millions if not trillions of actual spying incidents. For example, the part where country code for Egypt was confused with the area code for Washington DC. That one incident was actually many many incidents.

Finally, since you made me read this piece of shit, the accompanying document the post published that included directives not to disclose to overseers (FAA, DOJ, et al) the targeting rationale data presented to the FISA court sure sounds like obstruction of justice to me. But I'm not a lawyer.

This shit cannot be logically explained away. But increasing the noise, contesting the obviously incontestable, is part of the game. The routine nature of these violations is not an indication of garden variety fuckups; to the contrary a routine disregard for the law, executive orders, and oversight.

I ain't happy about having read this shit. My head fucking hurts.

[Steve of phpBB]

Steve, I just read it too. It is not the audit report--it is an executive summary.

Pretty clear they are talking about much more than metadata.

Use of linguists, just to cite one example, is used to translate human language, not machine language. Sure, the spook bureaucratese language used in the audit report is tough to penetrate, but it's there. Monitored phone calls, in that report. Clouded by weird technical terms ('selectors', 'detasking', '

The '99.9% error free' meme is more bullshit. A single incident (of the 2,000 or so in one month) often had millions if not trillions of actual spying incidents. For example, the part where country code for Egypt was confused with the area code for Washington DC. That one incident was actually many many incidents.

Finally, since you made me read this piece of shit, the accompanying document the post published that included directives not to disclose to overseers (FAA, DOJ, et al) the targeting rationale data presented to the FISA court sure sounds like obstruction of justice to me. But I'm not a lawyer.

This shit cannot be logically explained away. But increasing the noise, contesting the obviously incontestable, is part of the game. The routine nature of these violations is not an indication of garden variety fuckups; to the contrary a routine disregard for the law, executive orders, and oversight.

I ain't happy about having read this shit. My head fucking hurts.

Sorry to make you dig into that pile of crap. Yeah, I think those references to linguists has to mean that someone was reading or listening to something. It's so hard to figure out what's going on because we are basically relying on either sensationalistic media, dishonest government spokespeople, or impenetrable officialese to tell us.

As I said before, though, I'm a lot less troubled by the incidents that were disclosed than by what counts as regular operating procedure. I think Scott Lemieux, of Lawyers Guns and Money, and American Prospect, made some good points in this article (http://prospect.org/article/nsa-cant-be-trusted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) - even if the audit report just discloses honest mistakes made in good faith, imagine what someone can do with these powers if they are *not* acting in good faith.

[Steve of phpBB]

So ... 35 years for Manning.

That's a toughie.

On the one hand, I am very glad that he exposed the US war crimes in Iraq.

On the other hand, I do not think it was appropriate or "whistle-blowing" to disclose confidential internal diplomatic communications that had nothing to do with war crimes or illegality, or even immorality.

But back on the first hand, 35 years is a ridiculously severe sentence for that kind of stuff. Especially when so few of the torturers and war criminals have actually been punished. (Although didn't a bunch of the Marines involved in one of those mass civilian killings in Iraq get prosecuted and convicted.)

But back on the other hand again, shouldn't soldiers who disclose classified information be subject to extra sanction when they knowingly and intentionally violate their oath and duty to keep that information confidential? Do we really want soldiers to take it upon themselves to decide that something is morally wrong, and therefore disclose confidential material they have been entrusted with? Would we be applauding someone as a whistle-blower if they published the Enola Gay's flight plan because they thought it would be immoral to use an atomic weapon on a civilian population?

It's like with Snowden. I am glad that he disclosed some of the stuff he did - but I can't get behind his taking top secret information about US national security procedures and methods to Russia and China.

Gah. I think justice probably requires a tough sentence, but then a commutation or pardon down the road, and not very far down the road. But if Obama or any other Democrat pardoned him, we'd be in for another 30 years of Republicans winning elections because they are "strong on national defense." Ironically (or not), I think Manning's best shot at a pardon would be if someone like McCain were president.

[A_B]

he wants to live as a woman? How did I miss that?

[Pruitt]

he wants to live as a woman? How did I miss that?

Just got to say that the fact the Army released this picture that Manning sent to his therapist is reprehensible - at least based upon how organizations in a civil society are supposed to behave.

So ultimately, the fact that the Army did this is not really so surprising. And it provides a smokescreen. So while some people are debating the severity of the penalty AND the content of what Manning leaked, the majority of the chattering class will be talking about the fact that he wanted to be a woman. Well played...