Feinstein complains about CIA spying on Senate (1 Viewer)

[Rayderr]

What's good for the goose...

Feinstein: CIA searched Senate panel's computers

By CNN Staff

updated 10:37 AM EDT, Tue March 11, 2014

(CNN) -- The chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee accused the Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday of inappropriately searching the committee's computers as the panel investigated the CIA's detention and interrogation program

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said CIA Director John Brennan told her in January that agency personnel searched the computers because of a belief that the panel might have had access to an internal review of the matter.

"The CIA did not ask the committee or its staff if the committee had access to the internal review or how we obtained it. Instead, the CIA just went and searched the committee's computer," she said. "... I have grave concerns that the CIA search may have ... violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution."

 

[LinusMarr]

Shes a typical lib, hypocrite lenny....

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Shes a typical lib, hypocrite lenny....

She is anything but typical lib on this matter. She has gone security-hawk on it.

We all know who tried to defund the NSA from spying on citizens and who didn't.

And as I said in the other thread... she can suck a bag of #####.

 

[jonessed]

Someone else needs to get in front of this because what the CIA did here is very serious. Unfortunately, Feinstein has no credibility in these matters anymore.

 

[The_Man]

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has nothing to hide, why do they object to being monitored by the CIA?

 

[T Bell]

Someone else needs to get in front of this because what the CIA did here is very serious. Unfortunately, Feinstein has no credibility in these matters anymore.

No sympathy for Feinstein personally, but you can't have the CIA spying on the political branch that is supervising it. That's a major problem with constitutional implications.

I'm fascinated, however, by how aggressively the CIA is denying this though:

CIA director John Brennan initially rejected the Senate allegations last week.

"I am deeply dismayed that some members of the Senate have decided to make spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts," he said on 5 March.

"I am very confident that the appropriate authorities reviewing this matter will determine where wrongdoing, if any, occurred in either the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch."

That's called coming out swinging and that leaves him no room to backtrack if any evidence comes to light supporting Feinstein.

 

[fatness]

Someone else needs to get in front of this because what the CIA did here is very serious. Unfortunately, Feinstein has no credibility in these matters anymore.

Yeah, it is, and Feinstein was in favor of the CIA spying on whomever they wanted until now.

There are 99 other Senators. You'd think someone else would care.

 

[RCon]

Shes a typical lib, hypocrite lenny....

She is anything but typical lib on this matter. She has gone security-hawk on it.

We all know who tried to defund the NSA from spying on citizens and who didn't.

And as I said in the other thread... she suck a bag of #####.

Our current elected politicians from both parties are complicit in this. Nearly all of them seem to support the status quo. I think "typical liberal" and "typical conservative", in terms of this particular topic, are identical terms.

 

[glumpy]

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has nothing to hide, why do they object to being monitored by the CIA?

It's been years since I'd heard anyone try to push this one through!

 

[The_Man]

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has nothing to hide, why do they object to being monitored by the CIA?

It's been years since I'd heard anyone try to push this one through!

Years? It was just a few months ago that Senator Lindsey Graham said this:

"I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

 

[fatness]

Our current elected politicians from both parties are complicit in this. Nearly all of them seem to support the status quo. I think "typical liberal" and "typical conservative", in terms of this particular topic, are identical terms.

You're quite right, and it's been that way for years now.

 

[glumpy]

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has nothing to hide, why do they object to being monitored by the CIA?

It's been years since I'd heard anyone try to push this one through!

Years? It was just a few months ago that Senator Lindsey Graham said this:

"I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

I actually meant the justification by implication: "If you've got nothing to hide then why do you care?"

 

[Slapdash]

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has nothing to hide, why do they object to being monitored by the CIA?

It's been years since I'd heard anyone try to push this one through!

Years? It was just a few months ago that Senator Lindsey Graham said this:

"I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

I actually meant the justification by implication: "If you've got nothing to hide then why do you care?"

You must have been in a coma since the Snowden revelations then.

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has nothing to hide, why do they object to being monitored by the CIA?

You cannot be serious?

 

[RCon]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

Edit: 4. No one has shown that what the NSA is doing, "even on paper", is a necessary tool for national security. In fact, every serious study done to date seems to show that it has not helped at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

 

[NCCommish]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

You couldn't possibly be more off base.

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

What an ########

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

1. No it doesn't, but that's up to the courts to decide if such a distinction is legitimate enough to make mass warrants applicable. As previously discussed, legal scholars are divided on this issue. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution has plenty of implicit ideas which are not stated directly: for example, the right to privacy. Why not in this case?

2. Yes it does. But if the courts rule that mass warrants are applicable, then this argument becomes irrelevant.

3. I don't know. I think you're right and that bothers me greatly if you are, enough so that I am now of the viewpoint that this whole program should be shut down until/unless we get some definitive answers to these questions. But in any case, it doesn't have much to do with the theory of whether collecting mass data is legal or illegal.

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

What an ########

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without calling me what I think you just called me?

 

[tom22406]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this Tim?

And then wonder why you get the same replies time and time again.

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

What an ########

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without calling me what I think you just called me?

Maybe before you posted the same erroneous bull#### a few hundred times.

 

[The_Man]

Here is Feinstein's statement from the Senate floor.

I think she is loathsome, but this is still very good.

However, Tim, it is the height of hypocrisy for Feinstein to have allowed the national security apparatus to trample the Fourth Amendment and civil rights of ordinary citizens, only to suddenly wrap herself in the Constitution when she gets the same treatment.

In my dream world, this gross (and very likely criminal) overreach by the CIA ignites a deep and meaningful national conversation that results in significant pushback of the CIA and NSA. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this Tim?

And then wonder why you get the same replies time and time again.

I keep repeating it because I believe, like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, that what the NSA is doing is, at least theoretically, necessary for national security. I write "theoretically" because I don't know for sure, but I accept the arguments that Obama, Feinstein, and others have made, at least in theory. I get that there's not a single person here who agrees with me on this, and that every time I post it, I am subjecting myself to ridicule. But that's what I think. Guess I'm just an #######.

 

[RCon]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

1. No it doesn't, but that's up to the courts to decide if such a distinction is legitimate enough to make mass warrants applicable. As previously discussed, legal scholars are divided on this issue. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution has plenty of implicit ideas which are not stated directly: for example, the right to privacy. Why not in this case?

2. Yes it does. But if the courts rule that mass warrants are applicable, then this argument becomes irrelevant.

3. I don't know. I think you're right and that bothers me greatly if you are, enough so that I am now of the viewpoint that this whole program should be shut down until/unless we get some definitive answers to these questions. But in any case, it doesn't have much to do with the theory of whether collecting mass data is legal or illegal.

Naturally, you won't be convinced, but as pointed out to you before, granting a "mass warrant" that encompasses everything is identical to not requiring a warrant in the first place.

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this Tim?

And then wonder why you get the same replies time and time again.

I keep repeating it because I believe, like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, that what the NSA is doing is, at least theoretically, necessary for national security. I write "theoretically" because I don't know for sure, but I accept the arguments that Obama, Feinstein, and others have made, at least in theory. I get that there's not a single person here who agrees with me on this, and that every time I post it, I am subjecting myself to ridicule. But that's what I think. Guess I'm just an #######.

So now it is theoretical but a half-hour ago it was neccesary.

ETA: looks like you're short a letter.

 

[tom22406]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this Tim?

And then wonder why you get the same replies time and time again.

I keep repeating it because I believe, like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, that what the NSA is doing is, at least theoretically, necessary for national security. I write "theoretically" because I don't know for sure, but I accept the arguments that Obama, Feinstein, and others have made, at least in theory. I get that there's not a single person here who agrees with me on this, and that every time I post it, I am subjecting myself to ridicule. But that's what I think. Guess I'm just an #######.

So now it is theoretical but a half-hour ago it was neccesary.

But he doesn't know for sure

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this Tim?

And then wonder why you get the same replies time and time again.

I keep repeating it because I believe, like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, that what the NSA is doing is, at least theoretically, necessary for national security. I write "theoretically" because I don't know for sure, but I accept the arguments that Obama, Feinstein, and others have made, at least in theory. I get that there's not a single person here who agrees with me on this, and that every time I post it, I am subjecting myself to ridicule. But that's what I think. Guess I'm just an #######.

So now it is theoretical but a half-hour ago it was neccesary.

No. Please read what I wrote again. A half hour ago I used the words "purportedly" and "at least on paper", and emphasized them. That is exactly the same as theoretical.

 

[The Commish]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

You couldn't possibly be more off base.

Keep observing.

 

[The_Man]

Here is Feinstein's statement from the Senate floor.

I think she is loathsome, but this is still very good.

My favorite part comes at the bottom of page 10, when she essentially indicts the CIA's general counsel - implies he was dirty while he was the chief lawyer of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center (the unit that the Senate Intelligence Committee was investigating) and that he is now trying to intimidate the investigators after attempting to mislead them earlier. Reading between the lines, she seems to think he's behind the CIA's spying on the Intelligence Committee.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

Yeah what? You obviously didn't even read the article.

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this Tim?

And then wonder why you get the same replies time and time again.

I keep repeating it because I believe, like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, that what the NSA is doing is, at least theoretically, necessary for national security. I write "theoretically" because I don't know for sure, but I accept the arguments that Obama, Feinstein, and others have made, at least in theory. I get that there's not a single person here who agrees with me on this, and that every time I post it, I am subjecting myself to ridicule. But that's what I think. Guess I'm just an #######.

So now it is theoretical but a half-hour ago it was neccesary.

No. Please read what I wrote again. A half hour ago I used the words "purportedly" and "at least on paper", and emphasized them. That is exactly the same as theoretical.

No. You used "purportedly" to describe the scope of their actions and "at least on paper" to describe how it doesn't violate privacy.

 

[tom22406]

Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.

 

[Slapdash]

Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.

Theif

 

[tom22406]

Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.

Theif

Guilty as charged but it does seem rather fitting for this thread and Feinstein.

 

[fatness]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

That's the issue causing a lot of objections to the snooping to appear and disappear based on what party controls the white house. Basically half the people objecting don't care if their party's in power. People objected to what Bush was doing in this regard until Obama got elected; then a lot of objectors became defenders or silent, and a lot of defenders became objectors or silent. That pattern will continue as the scope of the snooping continues to expand in the future under republicans and democrats.

The issue's way more important than party. And neither party thinks so.

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

Yeah what? You obviously didn't even read the article.

This is just shocking man. Tim is spouting off about something without reading the article or understanding the issue. That totally never happens.

 

[NCCommish]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

That's the issue causing a lot of objections to the snooping to appear and disappear based on what party controls the white house. Basically half the people objecting don't care if their party's in power. People objected to what Bush was doing in this regard until Obama got elected; then a lot of objectors became defenders or silent, and a lot of defenders became objectors or silent. That pattern will continue as the scope of the snooping continues to expand in the future under republicans and democrats.

The issue's way more important than party. And neither party thinks so.

I run with a lot of Democrats. I don't know one who thinks it's OK because Obama. I have found the disgust to be pretty bipartisan on the ground.

 

[Sarnoff]

What is she complaining about? Isn't this what Obama promised to do when he was elected? Expand the PATRIOT ACT to the extremes, spy on everyone, screw up healthcare, and turn the economy into a constantly filling bubble always at the edge of bursting? Pretty sure this is exactly what he ran on.

 

[Rayderr]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

That's the issue causing a lot of objections to the snooping to appear and disappear based on what party controls the white house. Basically half the people objecting don't care if their party's in power. People objected to what Bush was doing in this regard until Obama got elected; then a lot of objectors became defenders or silent, and a lot of defenders became objectors or silent. That pattern will continue as the scope of the snooping continues to expand in the future under republicans and democrats.

The issue's way more important than party. And neither party thinks so.

I run with a lot of Democrats. I don't know one who thinks it's OK because Obama. I have found the disgust to be pretty bipartisan on the ground.

I know plenty of Democrats that are fine with it. Because Obama is using it honorably whereas Bush was using it for evil purposes in their mind.

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

Yeah what? You obviously didn't even read the article.

This is just shocking man. Tim is spouting off about something without reading the article or understanding the issue. That totally never happens.

That's just how us #######s roll.

 

[fatness]

I know plenty of Democrats who just don't talk much about it. And plenty of Republicans who started talking about it a lot after early 2009. Same/same.

 

[Slapdash]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

Did you actually READ what she's complaining about? Hint: It has nothing to do with listening to phone calls without a warrant!!!!

Yeah, but my point is still the same. The CIA is gathering specific information. The NSA is not. The comparison doesn't hold.

Yeah what? You obviously didn't even read the article.

This is just shocking man. Tim is spouting off about something without reading the article or understanding the issue. That totally never happens.

That's just how us #######s roll.

You're still missing a letter here

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants.

So if you walk out your front door tomorrow and find your postman reading your mail, and he says 'don't worry, we're just seeing if we should put out a warrant on you and your neighbors but you're clean so far", you're cool with that, right?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants.

So if you walk out your front door tomorrow and find your postman reading your mail, and he says 'don't worry, we're just seeing if we should put out a warrant on you and your neighbors but you're clean so far", you're cool with that, right?

 

[timschochet]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants.

So if you walk out your front door tomorrow and find your postman reading your mail, and he says 'don't worry, we're just seeing if we should put out a warrant on you and your neighbors but you're clean so far", you're cool with that, right?

No I'm not.

BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME THING!