Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[geriatrickid]

The funny thing about this is that China's earlier ban of Facebook and other US services now appears totally justified and even wise, because by doing so they avoided giving the US material to manipulate Chinese VIPs.

And yet China a vast military division that has hacked into government websiites and that has targeted individuals and private companies for decades. Multinational criminal gangs have hacked banking networks and stolen far more information and violated more personal privacy than the NSA has. Self appointed vigilantes such as anonymous regularly threaten and extort people and organizations they disagree with. To all these groups and people, none of the people complaining on this thread has been as outraged. Unfortunately, one of the few effective ways of countering such threats is by having programs such as those operated by the NSA.

[geriatrickid]

Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic

Pew Poll: Public Says Investigate Terrorism, Even If It Intrudes on Privacy

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

Decisive majorities of Americans are sufficiently attentive to terrorism to the point that 56% support the current NSA program of phone tracking and 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy.

This means the wild guess numbers posted above need to be significantly revised. It in fact means the numbers above need to be, for all practical purposes, reversed - or almost so.

The Pew Center findings, published Monday, also mean a good number of posters at TVF need to reassess their thinking of what we the American people want, prefer, consider on balance, find acceptable, and believe. Once again a substantial number of posters are inconsistent with the great American middle, i.e., the majority point of view of Americans in general. It's just long past time for some people who post here to get real. They need to become recovering radical extremists.

Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are very closely following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records. This is a relatively modest level of public interest, to state it mildly. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following it not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.

The public's Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all.

The NSA program is just not the end of Western civilization that a number of posters here might like to suggest, nor is it the end of the U.S. constitution or of freedom or liberty in the United States. The NSA program is viewed by the large center-middle of the United States - the body politic - as another necessary and tightly controlled program and policy that is designed and implemented to protect us against the many foreign terrorists who burn with the passion to destroy us.

Edward Snowdon, where ever you may be in your underground cover, you just threw your life away. You talk a good game but haven't any university degree. I think you just earned one in BS.

First of all, many of the most successful people in all walks of life do not have a university degree, Richard Branson to name but one. You appear to suggest that because Snowdon doesn't have one somehow that means he has no credibility. Are you a snob? Do you really believe that this gross invasion of private citizen's privacy in many friendly countries by the US administration is all about trapping terrorists? Do you really believe that potential terrorists talk about their future plans on social media and their mobile phones? Of course they don't, this scandal has nothing to do with terrorism, that is just a red herring which appears to have been very effective in your case. There is nothing wrong with being a patriot, love of one's country, nothing at all. But not blind patriotism, my country right or wrong, in your case the Obama administration right or wrong. You appear to be willing to accept everything anybody in the current admininistration or their security services tell you as gospel truth, without question. History should show you that this is a very naive position to take. To quote the late, much lamented Frank Zappa. "There's a fine line between kneeling down and bending over".

Why stop with naming just one, Richard Branson?

Three more that do not have college degrees are Microsoft's Bill Gates, Apple's Steve Jobs and Dell Computers Michael Dell.

http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/09/we-dont-need-no-education-meet-the-millionaire-dropouts/

Thanks for that, i never realised these guys were not graduates, you learn something every day. Just goes to show that you don't necessarily need a top education to be clever and successful. My old Dad was one of the wisest men i knew, and he left school at fourteen.

The difference between the people cited and Mr. Snowden is that none of those people engaged in serious criminal activity. Each of those people has made a positive contribution to society and built something of value and of use. They offered a product of tangible benefit. Mr. Snowden has not done any of that. All that he has done is to betray trust, violate a contract, and to put his country at risk. mr. Snowden did not innovate or create value. He has instead devalued significant assets.

[Publicus]

Publicus, all well and good. But how much longer would the Vietnam tragedy have gone on and how many more tens of thousands would have died if Daniel Ellsberg hadn't "broken the law", becoming a traitor to the powers that be?

First, Ellsberg in 1971 was vindicated by the Supreme Court which ordered the Nixon administration to cease trying to muzzle the press/media in the Pentagon Papers case. If anyone could show us a way the Supreme Court would vindicate or in any way approve of Snowden and his actions, I'd call them a miracle worker, or perhaps a devil worshiper. The matter all the same has now entered the U.S. judicial system.

Ellsberg's leak of the top secret Rand Corporation study of the ugly actual history of the Vietnam war, commissioned by the Pentagon, broke in the Washington Post then in the New York Times in 1971. Nixon had already been president since January 1969 promising a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. Nixon's "secret plan" turned out to be his stubborn insistence on "peace with honor." This serious caveat prevented closure of the Vietnam war long before the U.S. actually did leave, in spring 1974.

So it took another three years after publication of the Pentagon Papers and the ruling of the SCOTUS to bring the Vietnam war to its conclusion. The war ended primarily because the Congress refused to vote any further funds to support the war effort in Vietnam. That's two branches of the government acting to limit and, eventually, to stop the other of the three branches, the executive.

In the Snowden case, the Congress enacted the applicable laws, the executive branch carried out the laws and the special national security court validated both the foreign surveillance laws and the particular program of the executive branch pursuant to the laws. The SCOTUS is nowhere near becoming involved in this case, and if it were to become involved at some distant point in time, the consequence would be that Snowden would be held in a greater liability than he already is.

The current case is about preventing or precluding foreign terrorism against the United States homeland, not about a controversial war in Southeast Asia that seriously divided U.S. society and politics in the streets and homes of the United States for ten years. Snowden is not Ellsberg and this is not about the Vietnam war. Snowden will never have the force of the SCOTUS behind him. Snowden is facing only the strong headwinds of the three branches of the government in agreement and in unison.

[impulse]

Publicus, all well and good. But how much longer would the Vietnam tragedy have gone on and how many more tens of thousands would have died if Daniel Ellsberg hadn't "broken the law", becoming a traitor to the powers that be?

First, Ellsberg in 1971 was vindicated by the Supreme Court which ordered the Nixon administration to cease trying to muzzle the press/media in the Pentagon Papers case. If anyone could show us a way the Supreme Court would vindicate or in any way approve of Snowden and his actions, I'd call them a miracle worker, or perhaps a devil worshiper. The matter all the same has now entered the U.S. judicial system.

And, like Ellsberg, he should get his day in court. A real court. Not a special, secret court set up to rubber stamp everything coming down the pike in pursuit of today's bogeyman- terrorism.

Seems like a few years ago, it was communism and the gloves were off as McCarthy and company destroyed lives and violated rights with gleeful abandon.

Then you had that bunch in office that disagreed with every internationally accepted definition of torture. And some brave whistleblowers to bring all of that to light.

In fact, show me any whistleblower that has not violated some agreement they made or some law when they came forward.

This case is closer in parallel with Ellsberg than you're acknowledging. The only difference is we now know how the Ellsberg case turned out. It be may years before we know how this guy's case turns out.

Show me how a single American is harmed or killed due to the guys actions, and maybe you have a case. In the meantime, gross violations of my privacy have been brought into the light and for that, I thank the guy.

Edited June 12, 2013 by impulse

[Exsexyman]

Publicus, all well and good. But how much longer would the Vietnam tragedy have gone on and how many more tens of thousands would have died if Daniel Ellsberg hadn't "broken the law", becoming a traitor to the powers that be?

First, Ellsberg in 1971 was vindicated by the Supreme Court which ordered the Nixon administration to cease trying to muzzle the press/media in the Pentagon Papers case. If anyone could show us a way the Supreme Court would vindicate or in any way approve of Snowden and his actions, I'd call them a miracle worker, or perhaps a devil worshiper. The matter all the same has now entered the U.S. judicial system.

Ellsberg's leak of the top secret Rand Corporation study of the ugly actual history of the Vietnam war, commissioned by the Pentagon, broke in the Washington Post then in the New York Times in 1971. Nixon had already been president since January 1969 promising a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. Nixon's "secret plan" turned out to be his stubborn insistence on "peace with honor." This serious caveat prevented closure of the Vietnam war long before the U.S. actually did leave, in spring 1974.

So it took another three years after publication of the Pentagon Papers and the ruling of the SCOTUS to bring the Vietnam war to its conclusion. The war ended primarily because the Congress refused to vote any further funds to support the war effort in Vietnam. That's two branches of the government acting to limit and, eventually, to stop the other of the three branches, the executive.

In the Snowden case, the Congress enacted the applicable laws, the executive branch carried out the laws and the special national security court validated both the foreign surveillance laws and the particular program of the executive branch pursuant to the laws. The SCOTUS is nowhere near becoming involved in this case, and if it were to become involved at some distant point in time, the consequence would be that Snowden would be held in a greater liability than he already is.

The current case is about preventing or precluding foreign terrorism against the United States homeland, not about a controversial war in Southeast Asia that seriously divided U.S. society and politics in the streets and homes of the United States for ten years. Snowden is not Ellsberg and this is not about the Vietnam war. Snowden will never have the force of the SCOTUS behind him. Snowden is facing only the strong headwinds of the three branches of the government in agreement and in unison.

There you go again, parroting the CIA and Obama's line that this is all about precluding terrorism. It is nothing of the sort. I ask you again, do you really believe that potential terrorists would chat about their future plans on social media or their mobile phones? Of course they wouldn't. The fact of the matter is that your so called 'Liberal' beloved President has been caught out behaving in a totally illiberal and undemocratic manner. a disgraceful abuse of power by any yardstick. Nobody has been put at risk by Snowdon's revelations, some powerful people have been embarrassed. The character assasination has already started, he is 'unstable', a 'traitor', etc etc. How long before he is accused of rape? Whether you like it or not he has the support of millions of right thinking people who are grateful for his bravery in bringing this to public attention. There is great anger in the US congress across all parties, many members themselves had no idea this surveillance was going on. How can they represent the interests of their constituents if they are kept in ignorance. It is the very antithesis of democracy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/anger-mounts-congress-telephone-surveillance-programmes

Here is some food for thought about the NSA surveillence from a real expert on China, someone whose opinion surely has to be taken seriously given his history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/nsa-surveillance-us-behaving-like-china

[Ulysses G.]

There you go again, parroting the CIA and Obama's line that this is all about precluding terrorism. It is nothing of the sort. I ask you again, do you really believe that potential terrorists would chat about their future plans on social media or their mobile phones?

I have not quite decided where I stand on this, but, yes, some home-grown terrorists that have become self-radicalized would have used the internet and the telephone before these revelations came out - the al Queda pros most likely would have avoided it. This has definitely hurt security in the USA.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

Publicus, all well and good. But how much longer would the Vietnam tragedy have gone on and how many more tens of thousands would have died if Daniel Ellsberg hadn't "broken the law", becoming a traitor to the powers that be?

First, Ellsberg in 1971 was vindicated by the Supreme Court which ordered the Nixon administration to cease trying to muzzle the press/media in the Pentagon Papers case. If anyone could show us a way the Supreme Court would vindicate or in any way approve of Snowden and his actions, I'd call them a miracle worker, or perhaps a devil worshiper. The matter all the same has now entered the U.S. judicial system.

And, like Ellsberg, he should get his day in court. A real court. Not a special, secret court set up to rubber stamp everything coming down the pike in pursuit of today's bogeyman- terrorism.

Seems like a few years ago, it was communism and the gloves were off as McCarthy and company destroyed lives and violated rights with gleeful abandon.

Then you had that bunch in office that disagreed with every internationally accepted definition of torture. And some brave whistleblowers to bring all of that to light.

In fact, show me any whistleblower that has not violated some agreement they made or some law when they came forward.

This case is closer in parallel with Ellsberg than you're acknowledging. The only difference is we now know how the Ellsberg case turned out. It be may years before we know how this guy's case turns out.

Show me how a single American is harmed or killed due to the guys actions, and maybe you have a case. In the meantime, gross violations of my privacy have been brought into the light and for that, I thank the guy.

The Ellsberg case had an immediacy and urgency that caused the Supreme Court to haul the case before it, hear it, decide it, in a matter of months. The SCOTUS acted with an unprecedented rapidity in that case.

The Snowden case does not have any such legal urgency - the government hasn't yet filed charges against Snowden. There isn't any pressing constitutional issue crying out for resolution (while Snowden gave his documents and info to a foreign newspaper, the U.S. press and mass media have picked up on it without any attempt by the White House to violate the First Amendment).

We don't know any human or other assets that may or might have been harmed because the existing program exposed by Snowden is a confidential program we don't want our enemies to know of. We may or may not already have lost human assets because of this, but the government is not going to say so because it doesn't want to jeopardize any assets in the global program, human or otherwise

Again, it's been discussed here that the core national security agencies are exempted from whistleblower protection by the nature of the mission they are assigned. It's been said many times at this thread that if a national security professional has a gripe, he should take it to an elected Member of Congress, not to foreign media then flee the country.

The Patriot Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court; I've already expressed my discomfort with the act but also have said not all laws are all bad. The Supreme Court is a real court that is atop a real U.S. Judiciary. The FISA court is a real court with real judges, a specialized court that deals exclusively in national security, so one great difference is that neither you nor I can go sit in on the court's business, nor can we hear or read its decisions, and rightfully so.

Under the FISA, my phone call from here to my bank in the U.S., or to anyone in the U.S., is subjected to surveillance monitoring. That's what we're talking about in this matter - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. My family in the U.S. calls me, the call is under the jurisdiction of the FISA. However, it may never be listened to as most calls are put into a database, unless something about them raises a red flag in a timely manner.

I regret that I have to rehash all of these known points that you rehash in your post.

[bunnydrops]

Assuming he is not killed by a drone strike or part of a rendition ending up up in some CIA 'facility', and that he is ultimately afforded the rights guaranteed by that pesky Sixth Amendment, a trial might ultimately reveal more details than the No Such Agency wishes revealed.

The government went after Thomas Drake with a vengeance, but ultimately dropped all charges, although he did plead to a misdemeanor.

The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001."

http://www.gpo.gov/f...W-107publ56.pdf

prohibits persons from disclosing details re: the "tools" used to gather "intelligence"

Note this from section 215:

"No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

Yes, that is what freaked me out. Being a business owner, I could not tell anybody that the government was going through my records of an employee. Freedom of speech? Not anymore. Also the last time I flew here. The airline asked me when I would be returning to the US. I asked them why the airline wanted to know. They told me " Its not the airline. Its the NSA that wants to know.

[wealth]

Booz Allen is in the stock market since 2010 and Carlyle group has 70% share. Does Carlyle group ring bells here? Who setup T?

$5.8 billion turnover last year. 99% government contracts and 23% of that working secret services including the CIA. 25000 employees with about 17000 of that figure have security clearance. hmm ...

Other private groups working with NSA are Boeing, General Dynamics, Palantir, CACI, CSC and Logicon.

In other words the taxpayers pay billions to have the elite spy on them?

[Publicus]

Now Russia set to offer whistleblower asylum: Putin 'considers' giving Edward Snowden refuge as NSA leaker vanishes in Hong Kong

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339329/Russia-hints-Putin-grant-political-asylum-whistleblower-Edward-Snowden-NSA-leaker-vanishes-Hong-Kong.html#ixzz2W0dZr7hr

A spokesperson for Putin said if Snowden showed up at the Russian Consulate office in Hong Kong he'd "consider it," meaning Putin granting Snowden political asylum in Russia.

Snowden had said he'd prefer Iceland, but the Iceland government said today that Snowden would have to travel to Iceland to make an application for political asylum, which would leave Snowden exposed to apprehension by U.S. authorities at a number of points from HKG itself to Iceland.

I haven't heard anything further about the U.S. Government revoking its passport issued to Snowden, an action that certainly would limit his travel and evasions. As far as I know, a revocation has not yet taken place.

[Sing_Sling]

In fact, show me any whistleblower that has not violated some agreement they made or some law when they came forward.

Yup, that's kind of the definition of what a whistleblower is, isn't it

[impulse]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/anger-mounts-congress-telephone-surveillance-programmes

So much for "approved by all 3 branches of government"

[wealth]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/the-dirty-little-secret-about-nsa-spying-it-doesnt-work.html -

The Dirty Little Secret About Mass Surveillance: It Doesn’t Keep Us Safe

and BTW I thought whistle blowing is like this. One of the main initiators to restrict freedom of speech, Bill Clinton, likes so much ...

But we wish this jewel to meet with Edward. Who knows, maybe first lady some day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqZBUrQdhXw

Edited June 12, 2013 by wealth

[Publicus]

Why Americans Don’t Fear the NSA

When it comes to protecting us from terrorists, we trust our government will do the right thing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/nsa_domestic_surveillance_american_voters_trust_the_government_to_fight.html

This vital point is where the U.S. vast political center-middle and the small extreme far right wing differ so sharply, as we see in many of the posts to this thread topic.

The huge majority of Americans, the center-middle, do look to the government to protect us against foreign enemies especially, but against domestic enemies too.

A CBS poll published two days ago shows 78% of Americans support phone and internet surveillance of persons in the United States who may be suspected by the government of being terrorists or connected to terrorism. So it's okay as long as the government has sound reason to believe it is dealing with enemies of the United States whether foreign or domestic. The body politic trusts the government's word in this matter, while the right wingers wholly distrust the government in all matters, to include very strongly in this one.

The over representation of right wingers here need to take note of this reality, i.e., that in the matter of foreign or domestic surveillance they set themselves apart from the vast center-middle of the U.S. body politic.

[GentlemanJim]

Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic

Pew Poll: Public Says Investigate Terrorism, Even If It Intrudes on Privacy

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

Decisive majorities of Americans are sufficiently attentive to terrorism to the point that 56% support the current NSA program of phone tracking and 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy.

This means the wild guess numbers posted above need to be significantly revised. It in fact means the numbers above need to be, for all practical purposes, reversed - or almost so.

The Pew Center findings, published Monday, also mean a good number of posters at TVF need to reassess their thinking of what we the American people want, prefer, consider on balance, find acceptable, and believe. Once again a substantial number of posters are inconsistent with the great American middle, i.e., the majority point of view of Americans in general. It's just long past time for some people who post here to get real. They need to become recovering radical extremists.

Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are very closely following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records. This is a relatively modest level of public interest, to state it mildly. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following it not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.

The public's Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all.

The NSA program is just not the end of Western civilization that a number of posters here might like to suggest, nor is it the end of the U.S. constitution or of freedom or liberty in the United States. The NSA program is viewed by the large center-middle of the United States - the body politic - as another necessary and tightly controlled program and policy that is designed and implemented to protect us against the many foreign terrorists who burn with the passion to destroy us.

Edward Snowdon, where ever you may be in your underground cover, you just threw your life away. You talk a good game but haven't any university degree. I think you just earned one in BS.

59% Oppose Government’s Secret Collecting of Phone Records

Sunday, June 09, 2013

Most voters oppose the U.S. government’s secret collection of the phone records of millions of Americans and think the feds are spying too much on U.S. citizens these days. Just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/59_oppose_government_s_secret_collecting_of_phone_records

We've hashed and rehashed the discredited and biased pollster Scott Rasmussen whose skewed surveys have an exceptionally huge structural margin of error.

I knew Rassmussen would be out wit his own mangled poll. And I knew you would present it as soon as the data was finished being cooked, thank you.

No one says that about the Pew Center's legitimate scientific public opinion survey research and its findings.

Rasmussen is not a researcher, he's a purposeful operative. He's the right wing's favorite pollster, and I use the word loosely.

Well what you fail to tell people while you try and discredit others is that the Pew Center is chaired by people such as former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth. Would you trust a poll to protect the NSA and the Patriot act to those people, and a multitude of similar folks who by the way have $5.8 Billion in assets in the trust? Honest information for the average American...yeah right, whatever you say!

Edited to add reference your post above this, would that be 'Slate' the online organization/magazine started up under the ownership of Microsoft? Oh that won't be biased as well will it, thanks

Edited June 12, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[Publicus]

Madeline Albright and John Danforth are political opposites.

Albright is a liberal Democrat, Danforth a conservative Republican. Both are reasonably either side of and within the U.S. political center-middle.

Sounds like a balance of sorts to me.

It also sounds like you don't trust anyone, anywhere, anytime for any number of reasons. Everybody has something about him/her that makes you distrust whomever it may be, or whatever it may be. Sad but true.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Publicus

[manarak]

The funny thing about this is that China's earlier ban of Facebook and other US services now appears totally justified and even wise, because by doing so they avoided giving the US material to manipulate Chinese VIPs.

The CCP-PRC in 2010 expelled Google from the Mainland because Google strongly refused to comply with the CCP's demands that Google recognize and practice the identical absolute censorship of the internet that the CCP has and enforces. The CCP has 30,000 full time censors controlling its internet sites, 24-7. Facebook is "Prohibited" in the PRChina because, as the CCP rightfully knows and says, were FB allowed there, the U.S. population on its own would create social and political "disharmony" in the PRChina.

Your post concerns me because it seems to imply strongly that CCP censorship and punishment "appears totally justified and even wise." Censorship by an authoritarian one party state is obscene and a violation of basic human rights. The Snowden case is radically different from the CCP's policies of mind and thought control, and of prohibiting free expression of political views by those in the PRChina who have somehow managed not to be completely indoctrinated from birth.

I agree with your views on censorship - my comment pertained only to the decision's aspect of locking the US' spionage tools out. It effectively protects China's interests.

I was not commenting on whether these interests promote or hinder the exercise of human rights.

[FDog]

I have no idea why some on here are talking about Snowden or China. This has nothing to do with them. This is about what the US govt is doing.

[ggold]

It would seem that America is not the land of the free, while slightly of topic it seems any form of criticism of state autorities will lose you your job.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/06/10/school-bus-driver-fired-facebook-post/

I hope the mods allow the above link, as it is pertinant to what constitutes wistleblowing when someone sees that the system is not perfect.

[chuckd]

Why Americans Don’t Fear the NSA

When it comes to protecting us from terrorists, we trust our government will do the right thing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/nsa_domestic_surveillance_american_voters_trust_the_government_to_fight.html

This vital point is where the U.S. vast political center-middle and the small extreme far right wing differ so sharply, as we see in many of the posts to this thread topic.

The huge majority of Americans, the center-middle, do look to the government to protect us against foreign enemies especially, but against domestic enemies too.

A CBS poll published two days ago shows 78% of Americans support phone and internet surveillance of persons in the United States who may be suspected by the government of being terrorists or connected to terrorism. So it's okay as long as the government has sound reason to believe it is dealing with enemies of the United States whether foreign or domestic. The body politic trusts the government's word in this matter, while the right wingers wholly distrust the government in all matters, to include very strongly in this one.

The over representation of right wingers here need to take note of this reality, i.e., that in the matter of foreign or domestic surveillance they set themselves apart from the vast center-middle of the U.S. body politic.

I get a slightly different take on the CBS poll you mention.

The CBS poll published shows 75% (not 78%) of Americans approve the Federal government collecting phone records of suspected terrorists. A minority of 20% disapprove of the government's actions in taking phone records of suspected terrorists.

What you conveniently omitted from your comments about the CBS poll is that only 38% of Americans approve the Federal government collecting phone records of "ordinary Americans". The majority 58% disapprove of the government's actions in taking phone records of ordinary Americans.

The actual poll follows, from CBS News.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most disapprove of gov't phone snooping of ordinary Americans

Polling analysis by Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

In the wake of the recent disclosure of two classified U.S. surveillance programs, most Americans disapprove of the government collecting the phone numbers of ordinary Americans, but approve of its monitoring those suspected of terrorist activity, according to a new CBS News poll.

Seventy-five percent of Americans approve of federal agencies collecting the phone records of people the government suspects of terrorist activity, but a 58 percent majority disapproves of this type of data collection in the case of ordinary Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588748/most-disapprove-of-govt-phone-snooping-of-ordinary-americans/

With relation to your position that the "vast center-middle of the US body poliltic" leans more heavily in favor of the position of the right than the left. The figures by party affiliation within the article show your statement to be false.

Some 62% of Independents disapprove of the taking of phone records of ordinary Americans, much as the Republicans at 66% and the Democrats trailing woefully in the rear with 48%.

In short, suspected terrorists it is OK. Ordinary Americans not so OK.

[Publicus]

Why Americans Don’t Fear the NSA

When it comes to protecting us from terrorists, we trust our government will do the right thing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/nsa_domestic_surveillance_american_voters_trust_the_government_to_fight.html

This vital point is where the U.S. vast political center-middle and the small extreme far right wing differ so sharply, as we see in many of the posts to this thread topic.

The huge majority of Americans, the center-middle, do look to the government to protect us against foreign enemies especially, but against domestic enemies too.

A CBS poll published two days ago shows 78% of Americans support phone and internet surveillance of persons in the United States who may be suspected by the government of being terrorists or connected to terrorism. So it's okay as long as the government has sound reason to believe it is dealing with enemies of the United States whether foreign or domestic. The body politic trusts the government's word in this matter, while the right wingers wholly distrust the government in all matters, to include very strongly in this one.

The over representation of right wingers here need to take note of this reality, i.e., that in the matter of foreign or domestic surveillance they set themselves apart from the vast center-middle of the U.S. body politic.

I get a slightly different take on the CBS poll you mention.

The CBS poll published shows 75% (not 78%) of Americans approve the Federal government collecting phone records of suspected terrorists. A minority of 20% disapprove of the government's actions in taking phone records of suspected terrorists.

What you conveniently omitted from your comments about the CBS poll is that only 38% of Americans approve the Federal government collecting phone records of "ordinary Americans". The majority 58% disapprove of the government's actions in taking phone records of ordinary Americans.

The actual poll follows, from CBS News.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most disapprove of gov't phone snooping of ordinary Americans

Polling analysis by Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

In the wake of the recent disclosure of two classified U.S. surveillance programs, most Americans disapprove of the government collecting the phone numbers of ordinary Americans, but approve of its monitoring those suspected of terrorist activity, according to a new CBS News poll.

Seventy-five percent of Americans approve of federal agencies collecting the phone records of people the government suspects of terrorist activity, but a 58 percent majority disapproves of this type of data collection in the case of ordinary Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588748/most-disapprove-of-govt-phone-snooping-of-ordinary-americans/

With relation to your position that the "vast center-middle of the US body poliltic" leans more heavily in favor of the position of the right than the left. The figures by party affiliation within the article show your statement to be false.

Some 62% of Independents disapprove of the taking of phone records of ordinary Americans, much as the Republicans at 66% and the Democrats trailing woefully in the rear with 48%.

In short, suspected terrorists it is OK. Ordinary Americans not so OK.

Your post is accurate and also inaccurate.

Your final sentence is accurate. It's been clear since polling on the question began around 2002 that the vast center-middle of Americans support government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the U.S. but oppose the government going on any general fishing expedition against Americans in general. The center-middle knows for sure it isn't involved in any schemes against our own United States. So this view of the vast majority of Americans remains unchanged, which means where I come from it's a trailer at best because it's not news - not specifically mentioning it here saves space, effort, time, words.

You are incorrect however to write, "With relation to your position that the "vast center-middle of the US body poliltic" leans more heavily in favor of the position of the right than the left. The figures by party affiliation within the article show your statement to be false." I dunno where you read a statement that I haven't ever made. The U.S. political center-middle has a penumbra that includes moderate views that are somewhat center-right or somewhat center-left, or squarely in the middle.

The U.S. political center-middle can and does occasionally lean more moderate right or moderate left, but only slightly so for limited periods of time. FDR's presidency is the exception due to historical circumstances that resulted in his election to four four-year terms as president, a feat that has since become constitutionally precluded. All the same, however, the U.S. political center-middle just doesn't move outside of fairly tightly drawn political parameters. The U.S. political center roundly rejected both the right wing extremism of the Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the far left extremism of the Democrat George McGovern in 1972. It rejects the tea party of the present political calculus.

I did state that the extreme far right of the U.S. political spectrum is over represented at TVF. Perhaps you were thinking of that statement, which was strictly limited to the realm of the TVF, not the United States.

[Publicus]

I have no idea why some on here are talking about Snowden or China. This has nothing to do with them. This is about what the US govt is doing.

The U.S. government is actively conducting an investigation into Edward Snowden and, were he still in the country, Snowden would have been apprehended for questioning some time ago.

Snowden blew away to Hong Kong, which is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. After staying a while at an upscale hotel, and from there identifying himself as the culprit, Snowden disappeared. Perhaps Snowden remains in HKG, but we don't know.

The CIA stated it suspects Snowden may be a "potential Chinese defector," meaning in all of the commotion of the news leaks and the PRC president Xi's visit with Prez Obama in California, Snowden showed up in HKG under the shelter and protection of the CCP, which rules the PRC to include, of course, Hong Kong. (CCP = Chinese Communist Party.)

The CIA quickly established a theory that Snowden may be a CCP agent. Given that I have lived and worked in the PRC, the CIA's theory strikes me as an easily viable one that has high probative value and justification.

[wealth]

let the people decide. Enough of these manipulations. Petition signing is in full swing.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global_do/?tXdUlab

[wealth]

Edward is in Hongkong and gave another interview to South China Morning Post

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china?page=1#comments

[wealth]

the interesting thing is now that mainstream media jumps in boldly. Some try their usual mind-control settings, but quite a few have left the ship of corporate gangland style.

Another interesting observation from a week ago. The first time in 60 years of secret Bilderberg meetings some MSM bowed to the pressure and started questioning.

[johna]

Cenk Uygur on TYT, telling you what's at stake here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n2JsXL55xAU

[johna]

So how do private contractors use the info they collect, Cenk Uygur tells all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zHiAwSF_xZ8

[kblaze]

check the sample sizes of the surveys...the first one that came out (the Pew survey?) that said most Americans are ok with the surveillance only used a 1000 person sample size

[chuckd]

check the sample sizes of the surveys...the first one that came out (the Pew survey?) that said most Americans are ok with the surveillance only used a 1000 person sample size

The Pew Center has always been and will always be hard left. Some people believe them, some don't.

[FDog]

I have no idea why some on here are talking about Snowden or China. This has nothing to do with them. This is about what the US govt is doing.

The U.S. government is actively conducting an investigation into Edward Snowden and, were he still in the country, Snowden would have been apprehended for questioning some time ago.

Snowden blew away to Hong Kong, which is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. After staying a while at an upscale hotel, and from there identifying himself as the culprit, Snowden disappeared. Perhaps Snowden remains in HKG, but we don't know.

The CIA stated it suspects Snowden may be a "potential Chinese defector," meaning in all of the commotion of the news leaks and the PRC president Xi's visit with Prez Obama in California, Snowden showed up in HKG under the shelter and protection of the CCP, which rules the PRC to include, of course, Hong Kong. (CCP = Chinese Communist Party.)

The CIA quickly established a theory that Snowden may be a CCP agent. Given that I have lived and worked in the PRC, the CIA's theory strikes me as an easily viable one that has high probative value and justification.

Oh stop waffling on about some none existent spying. This isn't about Snowden, this is about what the US govt is doing.