The Massive Problem With The National Security Of America

reply to post by Asktheanimals


America is no longer the 13 states it was when it started, with only a few million citizens.

America had grown, and its interests spans the world, providing economic infrastructures and stability for the progress of America.

As it had grown, it can no longer afford to continually micro-manage with the few govt officials it has, but to grow the bureacrocy to match the needs of citizens in a diverse and un-disneyland-like world

New agencies had to be created, along with its fundamental democratic approach of checks and balances to better and effectively manage those needs.

NSA was and still is a security need covering different security management in different sectors, same as CIA, FBI, DHS and other security services and come together to share information since 911 happened, and watched over by elected representatives in select committees. They all take command from the elected President and not as above the law as some presumed, certainly not with the amount of oversight elected representatives watching over them, as perfection does not exists in our mortal world.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


While you are right, but you can not deny the corruption that powers always brings when governments become too big to control or when Secret agencies are running rampant on private interest.

Agencies are made to procted nations and to secure against treats, but that has now gotten in the back burner When surveillance is fueled by private interest money.

You can not longer trust those that are there to protect us.

Based on thousands of pages of records obtained from law enforcement agencies, the report cites documents that offer concrete evidence that surveillance has become an embedded feature of everyday American life. CMD’s findings reinforce the concerns of many activists that the surveillance state has grown far beyond its purpose of protecting America from “terrorist threats,” detailing the ways in which it serves to benefit corporate interests. This is no secret. As the debate over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act earlier this year emphasized, public and private intelligence sharing is the wave of the future.

Such information sharing happens in multiple ways.

www.constitutioncampaign.org...

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101



There is no oversight and there hasn't been any in years.
There was never a "need" to create additional agencies unless need is defined by those who seek to gain power by unscrupulous and unlawful means.
Defending their existence is debatable but their actions are not.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is THE LAW.
Any breach of it is illegal and they've been doing it for decades.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


1. You make rather HUGE claims BUT UNSUBSTANTIATED that there had been NO oversight on those agencies for years. Care to show any evidences?

I will show you mine. In the Guardian article, it shows that the NSA had applied through constitutional means, to get judical approval for their mission and approved as its purpose was for the protection and defense of the nation against REAL and present danger from terrorists that had continued to sprout despite best efforts and worse, homegrown ones thanks to free internet radicalisation as happened in the Boston bombings.

That they HAD to go through constitutional means would only mean they dare not presume to be above the law as you wrongly claimed, and that alone is enough to show that you are merely speculating, and is dangerous during such times when the insane on the edge will readily grab any tidbit presumption of truth to go over that edge and cause harm and hurt to others.


2. The 4th Amendment is indeed the law. However, such laws and other constitutional laws were never meant to impede the growth and progress of America. If it needs be, all it needs is 3/4 majority and that law can be overturned, BUT, only if necessary.

HAD the administration overturned that law, in the face of real and present danger in this modern digital age? No. It only sought to monitor internet traffic, something which biz enterprises ALL over the world had already done, but in american govt - only for social defense.

As long as citizens be themselves, and honest to themselves, and have no intention of causing hurt or harm to another fellow human, they are free to indulge in whatever non-harmful vices they wish, in private, and will not be disturbed, for what happens behind closed doors remain private and fully protected by the 4th Amendment and supported by the judiciary whom will only authorise judgement on cases of actual hurt and harm.

The Prism project is not as frightening as the fear mongers had made it out to be. Only those whom have much to hide - criminals, pedophiles, druggies, corrupted, terrorists, etc, hiding amongst us, are sqealing in pain, and hope the naive will join in to support their continued free use of our tech to hurt and harm us even further.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Brown Shirt might be a bit much but the "independent" IRS did indeed target specific applicants with specific ideals/beliefs/etc but did not do that to other applicants.

All the specific details will probably never be made public but it walks/talks/quacks like a duck. It smells.

Most likely it was elements of the IRS and/or a pervasive attitude but it was totally wrong. It was the IRS going off the reservation big time with no checks and balances. A whistle blower and an honest to-God journalist brought it to light in the days of a war on whistle blowers and actual journalism.

There is no way on Earth a thinking American cannot be PO about this. To be told it is raining while they are urinating down my back and be OK with it is to ignore what my responsibility as a citizen is.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

As long as citizens be themselves, and honest to themselves, and have no intention of causing hurt or harm to another fellow human, they are free to indulge in whatever non-harmful vices they wish, in private, and will not be disturbed...

How in the world do you trust that? Who is to say next week the NSA decides what you do is now suspicious even though you are doing nothing more than being honest to yourself? Do you really trust that camel's nose in your tent?

This is along the lines of "if I am doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide". Try filming the police arrest someone. Try walking into the NSA's data collection facility in Utah. What? If nothing is wrong and they always follow all the rules, what is there to hide? Why the secrecy?

That is because that idea is utter BS. If I am doing nothing wrong, then why are you going through all my communications? On the possibility I will do something wrong? What I do might be wrong tomorrow?

To trust those in DC to "interpret" the Constitution to preserve the citizens rights is lunacy.

I will quote the source...

Now increasingly we see that it's happening domestically. And to do that they er - the NSA specifically - targets the communications of everyone, ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and analyzes them and measures them and it stores them for periods of time.

The source of the leaks himself has now stated on the record in that interview that the US government, through the Prism program of the NSA, is routinely gathering and sifting through ALL data and information from ALL citizens, whether they are American or not, in America or not.

Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything.

This is interesting to me, because he seems to be saying at first that any analyst can target anyone, but perhaps the information and access they will have to certain systems of information might be limited. So I suppose this means that someone with a basic level of access might be able to secure metdata for when the person logged into something or made a phone call, but perhaps the content of that call might be only available to someone with a higher clearance level?

But I sitting at my desk er certainly had the authorities to er to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the President if I had a personal email.

Now this is the juicy bit. He states that he could target a federal judge, and even the President. This is why I started this thread. Depending on how long this program has been in operation, and depending on how long these capabilities have been in place, all of your elected are clearly compromised. This is proof that the system does have the capability to monitor and intercept the private communications of everyone from the President down.

Surely people must understand the ramifications of this suggestion?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Constitutional means definition by whom the constitution of the US or the Patriot Act.

This a very interesting thing when the crocks try to convince the public that they are doing everything by the law, but then again, which law, the ones the crock are now hiding under with the Patriot Act?

Since when the Patriot act is the is now the constitutionof of the US, government is a mess.

The government said the siphoning of records is justified based on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives the government authority to seek records from businesses.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the court order does not grant the administration the ability to listen in on calls. Administration officials also said these kinds of activities are vetted with a few members of Congress..

So somebody is lying about who is using what and for what purpose.

Understand this this not about terrorist

But Mr. Sensenbrenner said the Justice Department may have misled Congress over the data. In 2011, a top department official said the section was used less than 40 times a year. Mr. Sensenbrenner said that gave the impression it was being used sparingly, to look for specific materials, not a broad fishing expedition.

And Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, said the nation’s top intelligence official misled him in March when he asked Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper if the National Security Agency collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Mr. Clapper replied: “No sir.”

So as you can see our so call to gencies to protect us from "terrorist" are working indenpendatly from what the oversight is if is any.

“This is deeply troubling,” Mr. Feingold said. “I hope today’s news will renew a serious conversation about how to protect the country while ensuring that the rights of law-abiding Americans are not violated.”

You know what that statement means? it means that our rights have been violated

www.washingtontimes.com...

reply to post by Rocker2013


In other worlds different interest in the nation pay big money that we the common citizen do not deserve to find out on how with secret courts they work independently to keep leverage against each other and the politicians they want to control.

That is why we got so many "spying agencies", so if they can gather trash to go after persons of their interest at any given time why we can find out who in the government they are blackmailing and for what.

reply to post by marg6043

And Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, said the nation’s top intelligence official misled him in March when he asked Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper if the National Security Agency collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Mr. Clapper replied "No sir.

That is not evidence of any lack in oversight, but only shows agency professionalism and integrity.

Notice that the incident was in Mar and way back before national security information had been spilled out?

NSA does not answer to Sen Wyden alone in an open hearing, espacially on secret national security issues. There are proper CHANNELS whereby such information can be revealed, to AUTHORISED personnel as determined and agreed upon by Congress - the select committees.

We do not live in disneyland today.

Sen Wyden should have known better about the correct procedures and as well as anyone using that qoute for another agenda.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Good addition. I just started reading about the whistle blower. A whole 'nother conversation.

A lot of the Feinstein/Chambliss malarkey makes sense now. If the IRS was utilized to target something as insignificance as c4 applications, what is stopping the real leverage on power players? If their communications are known or even the threat of being known, that is real control.

And I thought these schmucks were bought just with lobby money, heck, they are totally compromised now - on record! No wonder the wagons are circling and the head hunting is getting underway. The rock stands to get turned over.

reply to post by marg6043



Have you seen the latest information about the revolving door between the NSA and his old employer?

The current of director of national intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, who issued a stinging attack on the intelligence leaks this weekend, is a former Booz Allen executive. The firm's current vice-chairman, Mike McConnell, was DNI under the George W Bush administration. He worked for the Virginia-based company before taking the job, and returned to the firm after leaving it. The company website says McConnell is responsible for its "rapidly expanding cyber business". James Woolsey, a former CIA director was also a Booz Allen vice-president, and Melissa Hathaway, another former company executive also once worked as the top aide on cybersecurity to McConnell when he was DNI. The company headquarters in the leafy Washington suburb of McLean in northern Virginia, close to CIA headquarters and home to former and current intelligence officers. Snowden's decision to reveal his identity as a computer systems administrator for Booz Allen Hamilton, directly handling National Security Agency IT systems, raises significant image problems for the $6bn company and its 25,000-strong staff, which has traded on a bond of trust with sensitive clients, particularly the intelligence establishment

Now, this is looking more and more like there was indeed a coup, and that a combination of corporate, banking, military and industrial interests have seized control of the American government.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


You know what SoT101? I have been reading a lot on this subject today. More importantly, I have been reading a ton of commentary on this issue. Every article has comments underneath it.

I have noticed a clear category of thought on this matter making itself know among the outrage. Those who believe the surveillance state is good. It is needed. Bad guys are out there and the government are the good guys. I support the good guys.

...and who doesn't want to believe they are on the good guy team?

Maybe, just maybe, that school of thought is cultivated/manipulated/abused by those who stand to gain. Where were these good guys when the bankers robbed the American public blind? When this giant safety net had the drop on the Boston bombers but didn't stop them? Were are the good guys as we conduct wars all over the place draining our treasury and killing our best?

Are they really good guys? Are they really worth the trust you put in them?

reply to post by Rocker2013


I am thankful for the NSA, CIA, FBI, and could really use their assistance here in NC!! LOL If you only knew!! There are things going on down here that are beyond Paranormal! I feel we need more FBI agents!! They really do not have enough located in each State. There is so much corruption in Local Law-enforcement! If we cant trust the FEDS or Military we have no HOPE.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Is all about money, corruption and big interest, but this only shows that our system of government is broken when big interest are lobbying Washington with tainted money for favors on how intelligence is gathered and who owns those rights.

Is just like the market crash and the big scam by the bankers and the investing firms, at the end,government took their side and we all pay for them.

Big interest is everywhere and money talks and BS walk.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

In a democracy, it is the elected representatives who forms the Intelligence oversight committees watches over the NSA, its doings and espacially if national security intelligence had been leaked or used against citizens for blackmail or intimidation purposes

How about we go this far though...

What if the oversight committees have key members that are being blackmailed. What if someone at the NSA has dirt on every member of the committee?

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by marg6043

 

And Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, said the nation’s top intelligence official misled him in March when he asked Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper if the National Security Agency collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Mr. Clapper replied "No sir.

That is not evidence of any lack in oversight, but only shows agency professionalism and integrity.

Notice that the incident was in Mar and way back before national security information had been spilled out?

NSA does not answer to Sen Wyden alone in an open hearing, espacially on secret national security issues. There are proper CHANNELS whereby such information can be revealed, to AUTHORISED personnel as determined and agreed upon by Congress - the select committees.

We do not live in disneyland today.

Sen Wyden should have known better about the correct procedures and as well as anyone using that qoute for another agenda.

Ron Wyden says that he saw the ruling by the FISA court showing their concern that the Constitution was being circumvented. The info is classified and the DOJ is fighting against allowing it to be released.

That is, the secret court that approves this Patriot Act crap said that it was unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice doesn't think we deserve to know about it?

WTF?

The Massive Problem With The National Security Of America

I laugh when americans talk about this because its common public knowledge that presidents are denied access to black programs, for example Area 51 how many stories have we heard of presidents asking what goes on there and told, you don't hold the required security clearance and therefore we cant tell you.
The moment the average citizen heard this they should of realised that the democratic process has been circumvented. What have you guys and gals in the US been asleep?

If the government who represents "YOU" is not allowed to know what "YOUR" taxpayers payer dollars are being used for in these running of the black programs, then it represents a risk for exactly what you are now seeing the problem manifested.

I have no sympathy for you US guys and gals as your past presidents have already told you point blank that themselves are circumvented by the black programs, and now your acting surprised like oh my God...we didn't know this could be going on...hahahah! go back to sleep.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Oversight?
Edward Snowden worked there:

For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It's not the big, bad, beast I make it out to be.
Even if it was created by a secret Presidential order.

The only people who don't trust these folks are losers of every variety
who need watching, that's your take on it?

They have all your personal information and that's just fine with you.
Medical, financial, emails. phone conversations, credit card purchases.

So what have you done to merit their suspicion?

a reply to: Rocker2013

Do you REALLY think it's a bunch of older "military" men, who DON'T have extensive knowledge of information technology and computers running the NSA? Get real dude...