Sean Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance

[Cowboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 27ie4qFlXM#

[Wneglia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 27ie4qFlXM#

Obama then and now on NSA Surveillance.

[Stinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 27ie4qFlXM#

Obama then and now on NSA Surveillance.

Uh, he did end illegal wiretapping. Actually, Bush ended it in 2007 because it was . . . illegal. Once again, people confuse and conflate the FISA-court-approved data mining with Bush's illegal wiretapping. It's not rocket science, people.

[Ombudsman]

It's not rocket science, people.

But it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so it might as well be.

[O Really]

That is true re illegal wiretapping, if we can believe the claims as to what they are doing. Of course, being secret, we don't know for sure.]

What would you accept as evidence of truth (or at least relative truth - we are talking about politicians and military people y'know)? Obviously a statement from the General in charge of NSA isn't sufficient. What would you like to hear, and from whom?

[O Really]

As I just linked we have clear and recent evidence of lies to Congress and the public about it, so I am not impressed by "a statement from the General in charge of NSA". I suspect that there are multiple ways that I could be convinced otherwise. For now, I'll stick with the decades of revelations that our national security state has been doing things far worse than they admit to when first doubted.

My question wasn't whether anybody has ever lied or is lying now. I would't expect the head guy to get on TV and tell the whole truth, or maybe much truth. My question is, what would you personally accept, and from whom?

[Cowboy]

Whatever.

[Bungalow Bill]

Nutjobs like Hannity depend on people having short memories. Who can recall what
some columnist or commentator said a few months ago, not to mention years ago?
Someone went back and found that Krauthammer had no problem with people taking
the Fifth Amendment during the Bush years, but it was a big deal to him when Lois
Lerner took it a little while back. The bad doctor busted. Sweet.

[O Really]

...I suspect that there are multiple ways that I could be convinced otherwise...

Off the top of my head I'd go with civil liberties groups' opinion that the programs are narrow enough that the government is less of a threat to us than the terrorists are. I'm no expert. We do have to balance the freedom of 316 million against the possibility of a few getting killed in attacks while our core principles survive.

Having access to the call records of 316 million people does not mean those 316 million people lost any freedom or were in any way affected. Using that data to bring charges or worse is a different issue. What percentage of that 316 million do you guess will actually have that data used in any way against them? And of those, what percentage do you guess would be accused without grounds or through fabricated reasons?

[billy.pilgrim]

and who can forget kernel mike klink hayden

MR. HILL: Final question.
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.


where was sean's outrage when lil bush's pos head os NSA said the 4th doesn't require probable cause