Bloomberg: Multiple Cases of Intentional NSA Abuse! (i.e. 10 in 10 Years)

This is getting ridiculous, folks

US NewsAugust 2013 • Views: 21,203

I don’t even know what to say about this insanely overblown hysteria any more: NSA Analysts Intentionally Abused Spying Powers Multiple Times.

MULTIPLE TIMES! (Run around screaming.) MULTIPLE TIMES! THIS IS BAD, PEOPLE!

Oh wait. You mean, “multiple times” is actually … ten times, in ten years? And they were reported, corrected, and action was taken against the violators?

Good freaking grief.

The incidents, chronicled in a new report by the NSA’s inspector general, provide more evidence that U.S. agencies sometimes have violated legal and administrative restrictions on domestic spying, and may add to the pressure to bolster laws that govern intelligence activities.

The inspector general documented an average of one case per year over 10 years of intentionally inappropriate actions by people with access to the NSA’s vast electronic surveillance systems, according to an official familiar with the findings. The incidents were minor, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence.

Of course, this is now going to be trumpeted around the universe by the usual suspects, as “proof” that the evil President Obama was lying to the public.

And by the way:

The deliberate actions didn’t violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or the USA Patriot Act, the NSA said in its statement. Instead, they overstepped 1981 Executive Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan, which governs U.S. intelligence operations.

The actions, said a second U.S. official briefed on them, were the work of overzealous NSA employees or contractors eager to prevent any encore to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

UPDATE at 8/23/13 10:46:10 am

Right on cue:

There goes the “no deliberate abuse” claim, which was always false anyways http://t.co/Xhw6ZlaPkH

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 23, 2013

Jump to bottom

66 comments

Vicious Babushka Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:09:55am

Right on schedule, just like the trains in Il Duce’s time.

There goes the “no deliberate abuse” claim, which was always false anyways http://t.co/Xhw6ZlaPkH
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 23, 2013

lawhawk Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:10:46am

Oh, you left out a key juicy detail Charles. From your cited article:

The deliberate actions didn’t violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or the USA Patriot Act, the NSA said in its statement. Instead, they overstepped 1981 Executive Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan, which governs U.S. intelligence operations.

The actions, said a second U.S. official briefed on them, were the work of overzealous NSA employees or contractors eager to prevent any encore to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

So what’s EO 12333? It includes the following:

2.4Collection Techniques. Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not authorize:
(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;
(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers; and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons lawfully in its possession.
(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting; and
(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence element of a military service.
(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
2.5Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.

bratwurst Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:11:33am

Amazing how @Guardian and Greenwald can say anything, but their critics damn well better submit only peer-reviewed questions from Nobelists.
— Tom Nichols (@TheWarRoom_Tom) August 23, 2013

Interesting Times Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:12:48am

So what??!!? ONCE is too many!!!1!!

Bulworth Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:13:09am

Multiple times? Oh well that does it for me. The NSA has to go. ///

Bulworth Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:13:52am

re: #4 Interesting Times

That GIF is classic

lawhawk Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:15:04am

And again Bloomberg’s report indicates that FISC was anything but a lapdog, but instead held the NSA to higher standards - in trying to maintain the scope of their searches and adjudged some of their actions to be unconstitutional.

Rendering actions unconstitutional hardly sounds like being the lapdog of the NSA and rubber stamping decisions. Sounds more like a robust review process that found problems and sought to fix them.

Add to that the IG’s report, which found other instances and sought to fix them.

Let me repeat that. The Inspector General found problems and sought to remediate them. That’s not the result of Snowden’s actions or those of Greenwald (who would rather see the entire thing dismantled), but the internal workings of an agency tasked with keeping the nation safe from foreign threats, and those foreigners who enter the US with ill-intent.

Interesting Times Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:16:16am

re: #3 bratwurst

Amazing how @Guardian and Greenwald can say anything, but their critics damn well better submit only peer-reviewed questions from Nobelists.
— Tom Nichols (@TheWarRoom_Tom) August 23, 2013

By fantastic coincidence, this description fits AGW deniers to a T.

Eclectic Cyborg Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:18:47am

I’m sure most of you have seen those AAG commercials where Fred Thomson is hawking reverse mortgages.

I saw a new one yesterday (Fox News in the doctors office waiting room) in which not only does Thomson make the usual pitch, he also opines about how awesome Ronald Reagan was because apparently Reagan signed into law some provision that made reverse mortgages possible.

I could barely believe my ears.

Decatur Deb Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:18:50am

Back again for my afternoon GG treatment. Our Habitat build has rained out ‘til after the holiday.

dog philosopher Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:21:33am

Vegas Arrests Cast Light On Sovereign Psychotic Movement

“Sovereign citizens” trace alternate versions of American history, the center says.

Some believe that the American government secretly replaced the system designed by the founding fathers with a version of maritime law and enslaved citizens, and that judges around the country are in on the secret.

Some also believe that the government, at the birth of each child in the United States, sets up a corporate shell account and assigns the rights of the child to the account-holders, the center says.

By filing frivolous lawsuits, “sovereign citizens” adherents believe they can free themselves from the corporate masters and access the money in their shell accounts, the center says

Eclectic Cyborg Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:22:15am

Employers: Get your spouse off our insurance

It’s nothing personal, but some employers really want to ditch their workers’ spouses. They’re not making people get divorced, but are dropping spouses who have access to health insurance benefits through their own employers. It was big news yesterday when UPS announced that they plan to do exactly that, a change that affects about 15,000 people.

While the Affordable Care Act will add many people to the rolls of health insurance companies and extended coverage for employees’ kids until they turn 26, there’s no requirement that husbands and wives be included. According to Marketwatch, that has led more employers to consider dropping spouses.

Many companies already discourage spouses from signing up on their plans.

Luck for my wife and I, my company doesn’t do this. She couldn’t even GET health insurance if she didn’t have the spousal benefit through me.

Meitantei Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:25:22am

Also, slightly off topic.

I see that Ron Paul is hosting an Ask-me-anything on Reddit, which loves to crush on anything that is against the man. Anyone willing to dive into that cesspit and pick out his ~~looniest~~ most interesting responses?

lawhawk Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:25:49am

re: #12 Eclectic Cyborg

Employers are dropping spouses where the spouse can get insurance through their own employer. They aren’t dropping them where the spouse doesn’t have insurance through their employer or is unemployed.

At my company, they imposed a $600 surcharge for those who kept their spouses on the company insurance when the spouse could get health insurance through their own employer.

b.d. Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:26:38am

Has Glenn gotten to the bottom of who leaked Edward Snowden’s secrets yet? Maybe he should call the cops?

brennant Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:27:27am

re: #12 Eclectic Cyborg

The UPS story was flung around yesterday as bad press for the ACA. Yet the spouses in that story already have healthcare through their employer. Was it really Obamacare that made them do this, or just a simple cost saving measure?

Pavlovian Hive Mind Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:28:24am

re: #15 b.d.

Has Glenn gotten to the bottom of who leaked Edward Snowden’s secrets yet? Maybe he should call the cops?

Yep, Glenn did.
Who’s he kidding?
XD

kerFuFFler Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:29:06am

Thousands, THOUSANDS(!), of AMERICANS are killed on federally funded highways EVERY YEAR! One death is too many!11!! We must stop this genocide now!!!!11!!!

Bubblehead II Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:29:19am

re: #14 lawhawk

“At my company, they imposed a $600 surcharge for those who kept their spouses on the company insurance when the spouse could get health insurance through their own employer.”

My Wife and I both work for the same Company and we each have our own policy. After doing the math, it actually saved us about $30.00 a month.

lawhawk Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:30:24am

re: #16 brennant

Cost saving measure. Next step will be to charge more for when there are more than 1 kid. Family plan coverages don’t differentiate between the 1st kid and the 5th (and more kids means more medical care/treatments). It’s a way companies are trying to unwind and pass already existing costs on to the employees.

Only now, everyone gets to blame the ACA for the changes, when the changes were going in that direction anyways.

brennant Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:30:52am

re: #14 lawhawk

Yet all day it was spelled out as UPS dropping spouses coverage. Did anyone bother to read the article? …

b.d. Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:31:15am

re: #17 Pavlovian Hive Mind

Yep, Glenn did.
Who’s he kidding?
XD

You mean the guy who swore to destroy the UK earlier this week leaked something that would hurt the UK this week?

No way!

makeitstop Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:31:35am

re: #13 Meitantei

Also, slightly off topic.

I see that Ron Paul is hosting an Ask-me-anything on Reddit, which loves to crush on anything that is against the man. Anyone willing to dive into that cesspit and pick out his ~~looniest~~ most interesting responses?

Someone posted a link to this epic multi-part question this morning.

In Luap Nor’s case, the session might be aclled ‘Ask me anything but that.’

Eclectic Cyborg Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:31:51am

As some of you may know, as an immigrant myself, I take particular interest in immigration related issues due to my experience and since they have further impacts on my own affairs.

Not surprisingly, my studies have focused on the Southern border. I have a grown interest in the lives of the people and the history of the lands down there. Also since the goings on at the U.S./Mexico border have a direct influence on federal immigration policy, it’s highly relevant to me.

I’ve recently been reading The Death of Josseline. I’d highly recommend it to anyone.

The title refers to a 14 year old girl who died in the Sonora Desert in Arizona. Her mother had paid to have her and her brother smuggled in from Mexico to join her in America. Unfortunately, Josseline became violently ill due to dehydration and the Coyote (human smuggler) and her group of fellow immigrants abandoned her. Her brother eventually reunited with her mother.

Her body, unlike those of many other fallen migrants, was recovered.

I’ve also been reading The Fence, which examines many of the same issues of the other book, but from a law enforcement/border patrol perspective vs. an immigrant perspective.

brennant Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:32:24am

re: #20 lawhawk

When I read it, I thought it was a bullshit story, and really had nothing to do with ACA. My conservative friend did not see it that way. He believes it as another fork in Obamacare.

NJDhockeyfan Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:34:18am

re: #13 Meitantei

Also, slightly off topic.

I see that Ron Paul is hosting an Ask-me-anything on Reddit, which loves to crush on anything that is against the man. Anyone willing to dive into that cesspit and pick out his ~~looniest~~ most interesting responses?

You might like this.

Pretty epic (and damning) question put to Ron Paul on Reddit yesterday: http://t.co/exKeiNxMoS
— Yair Rosenberg (@Yair_Rosenberg) August 23, 2013

Bubblehead II Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:35:34am

re: #21 brennant

Yet all day it was spelled out as UPS dropping spouses coverage. Did anyone bother to read the article? …

Yeah, I read it and pointed out that it only effected those spouses who had access to health insurance through their employer. Unemployed spouses and those who didn’t have access to insurance would still be covered.

This did bring up the very valid fact that not all health insurance policies are equal and a dropped spouse might well end up being under insured.

dog philosopher Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:36:05am

camilla paglia helps get the ball rolling with the nasty snarly hillary hate that we are sure to get for oh i guess the next ten years

It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born
the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty
baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever
accomplished—beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?
She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move—with the tunnel-vision
workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private
thoughts.

and her her hairdo pisses me off because of what it did to poor vince foster and did i mention monica yet?

Bulworth Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:37:34am

re: #28 dog philosopher

Camilla - professional concern troll.

Gus Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:37:49am

.@eclecticbrotha Done. “Circle of Derp Badge” pic.twitter.com/ZMpHIeRcHr
— Gus (@Gus_802) August 23, 2013

NJDhockeyfan Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:40:14am

#BREAKING: Ft. Hood Shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan Guilty of Premeditated Murder
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) August 23, 2013

Pavlovian Hive Mind Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:40:31am

re: #30 Gus

[Embedded content]

I would totally buy that.

makeitstop Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:40:45am

re: #28 dog philosopher

camilla paglia helps get the ball rolling with the nasty snarly hillary hate that we are sure to get for oh i guess the next ten years

It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born
the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty
baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever
accomplished—beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?
She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move—with the tunnel-vision
workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private
thoughts.

and her her hairdo pisses me off because of what it did to poor vince foster and did i mention monica yet?

Paglia’s 15 minutes was up 20 years ago. Apparently no one’s let her know.

NJDhockeyfan Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:42:40am

Unanimous finding of guilt on all counts. 13 premeditated murder/32 attempted premeditated murder. Nice.

b.d. Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:42:42am

re: #31 NJDhockeyfan

[Embedded content]

Good. I was in the mood for some non-shocking good news.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:43:34am

re: #14 lawhawk

Employers are dropping spouses where the spouse can get insurance through their own employer. They aren’t dropping them where the spouse doesn’t have insurance through their employer or is unemployed.

At my company, they imposed a $600 surcharge for those who kept their spouses on the company insurance when the spouse could get health insurance through their own employer.

I’m waiting for companies where both spouses are employed by different companies to start arguing with each other about who has to cover the children. Maybe just starting to split them in two perhaps?

Pavlovian Hive Mind Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:43:55am

re: #35 b.d.

Good. I was in the mood for some non-shocking good news.

I am Batman!

Mattand Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:44:04am

re: #23 makeitstop

Someone posted a link to this epic multi-part question this morning.

In Luap Nor’s case, the session might be aclled ‘Ask me anything but that.’

I saw that notice for Paul’s AMA when I was reading the other day. I was wondeirng if anyone would ask him some tough questions. Excellent job by that poster.

Speaking of Reddit: would it be a gross exaggeration to describe Reddit as a more literate version of 4chan? I know very little about the site.

ProTARDISLiberal Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:44:09am

I heard back from someone, and have an interview Tuesday. Just in time too. My Dad is now doing “Race War” rhetoric.

I will stop talking to him once out of here.

Gus Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:44:17am

re: #32 Pavlovian Hive Mind

I would totally buy that.

25 bucks. //

Pavlovian Hive Mind Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:44:44am

re: #40 Gus

25 bucks. //

Sold. :P

Interesting Times Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:45:36am

re: #33 makeitstop

Paglia’s 15 minutes was up 20 years ago. Apparently no one’s let her know.

She’s also a rape apologist.

makeitstop Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:46:02am

re: #38 Mattand

I saw that notice for Paul’s AMA when I was reading the other day. I was wondeirng if anyone would ask him some tough questions. Excellent job by that poster.

Speaking of Reddit: would it be a gross exaggeration to describe Reddit as a more literate version of 4chan? I know very little about the site.

If I’ve been to Reddit twice, that would be a lot. I’m probably the guy here who would know less about it than you. :)

Lidane Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:46:09am

re: #31 NJDhockeyfan

My surprise, etc.

The only question left is if they’ll make him a martyr or if they toss in him in a cell and toss the key.

Pavlovian Hive Mind Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:46:47am

re: #38 Mattand

I saw that notice for Paul’s AMA when I was reading the other day. I was wondeirng if anyone would ask him some tough questions. Excellent job by that poster.

Speaking of Reddit: would it be a gross exaggeration to describe Reddit as a more literate version of 4chan? I know very little about the site.

In a lot of ways, yep.

CuriousLurker Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:47:18am

re: #31 NJDhockeyfan

[Embedded content]

No surprise there. Too bad a guilty verdict doesn’t have the power to bring the victims back to life. *sigh*

lawhawk Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:47:45am

re: #37 Pavlovian Hive Mind

Get the Afflack outta here! /

Eclectic Cyborg Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:47:46am

I wonder how Ben Affleck has been feeling for the past 24 hours…

Bubblehead II Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:48:58am

re: #44 Lidane

My surprise, etc.

The only question left is if they’ll make him a martyr or if they toss in him in a cell and toss the key.

I’ll stick my neck out here and say that he’s going to get life as making him a martyr is the last thing they will want to do.

b.d. Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:49:11am

re: #37 Pavlovian Hive Mind

I am Batman!

Whew, thank God! For a while I thought it was going to be Ben Affleck. Two pieces of good news!

brennant Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:49:25am

re: #48 Eclectic Cyborg

I wonder how Ben Affleck has been feeling for the past 24 hours…

I hope they bring back the nipples on his costume.

Kragar Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:50:04am

Center for Marriage Policy Worries Lesbians Will Trick Gay Men Into Fathering Their Children And Become Their Slaves

Usher argues that if same-sex marriage is legal then women will marry other women and have children with men “by pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” “Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages,” Usher writes, adding that women will also turn to the state for welfare benefits. Good heterosexual couples will be left “economically-disadvantaged” because they will be taxed to support the lesbian couples’ Big Government goodies.

But that’s not all: Usher then explains that gay men will have it the worst of all as they will be tricked into having sex with lesbians through “reproductive entrapment,” fathering their kids, and then paying child support to support them: “Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting ‘fathers’ by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved” to lesbian unions.

Backwoods_Sleuth Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:50:34am

I haz a new page about health insurance exchanges in Kentucky.

Lidane Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:50:52am

re: #48 Eclectic Cyborg

I wonder how Ben Affleck has been feeling for the past 24 hours…

Richer than 99% of the people calling his casting into question.

Personally, I don’t get why they cast anyone other than Joseph Gordon-Levitt since the last Bale film pretty much sets him up with the part, but whatever.

Kragar Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:51:43am

re: #54 Lidane

Richer than 99% of the people calling his casting into question.

Personally, I don’t get why they cast anyone other than Joseph Gordon-Levitt since the last Bale film pretty much sets him up with the part, but whatever.

It depends on if they are continuing in the same universe or rebooting both.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:53:38am

re: #55 Kragar

It depends on if they are continuing in the same universe or rebooting both.

They’re setting up for a “The Five Batmans” movie where the different Batman incarnations from the different parallel universes have to join forces to deal with a threat to the entire multi-verse.
/

Lidane Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:53:53am

re: #55 Kragar

It depends on if they are continuing in the same universe or rebooting both.

Eh, true. Seems like a waste to reboot everything, though. The Nolan trilogy was huge. And I haven’t seen Man of Steel, but would it really be that hard for the two characters to be in the same world?

Of course, I’ve gotten spoiled by Marvel creating an entire unified Cinematic Universe where all their films reside. My bias is showing.

ProTARDISLiberal Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:57:50am

re: #42 Interesting Times

Not exactly an outstanding human being.

ProTARDISLiberal Fri, Aug 23, 2013 10:58:41am

re: #56 Feline Fearless Leader

Hey! Batman’s not stealing from Doctor Who.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Aug 23, 2013 11:00:32am

re: #59 ProTARDISLiberal

Hey! Batman’s not stealing from Doctor Who.

Not uniquely a Dr Who thing. Moorcock’s “Eternal Champion” is another riff on that concept.

BongCrodny Fri, Aug 23, 2013 11:15:13am

re: #30 Gus

[Embedded content]

It could use a spinner.

BongCrodny Fri, Aug 23, 2013 11:17:30am

re: #47 lawhawk

Get the Afflack outta here! /

Argo fuck yourself.

BongCrodny Fri, Aug 23, 2013 11:28:05am

re: #56 Feline Fearless Leader

They’re setting up for a “The Five Batmans” movie where the different Batman incarnations from the different parallel universes have to join forces to deal with a threat to the entire multi-verse.
/

They’ve actually kind of did that before.

In the crossover “Night on Earth,” Warren Ellis’s Planetary crew — through mechanisms better left unexplained — traveled to various parallel universes, “Sliders” style, and met various versions of Batman as he’s been portrayed in comics over the years, including Batman as he was first presented in 1939, Frank Miller’s Dark Night interpretation…

…and my favorite sequence, where a somewhat pot-bellied Batman stalks the mean streets of Gotham City saying things like “Stand aside, citizen! There’s a miscreant loose in Gotham City!”

AntonSirius Fri, Aug 23, 2013 11:56:30am

The deliberate actions didn’t violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or the USA Patriot Act, the NSA said in its statement. Instead, they overstepped 1981 Executive Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan, which governs U.S. intelligence operations.

Call me crazy, but to me this says reform the FISA and Patriot Act to match the stricter standards, not abolish the NSA. But I’m clearly a jack-booted authoritarian.

EPR-radar Fri, Aug 23, 2013 12:18:38pm

re: #52 Kragar

This:

In most cases, these men will become un-consenting ‘fathers’ by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved” to lesbian unions.

is beyond ludicrous.

These idiots are so lost in their rhetorical games that they have forgotten the defining characteristic of gay men (which they normally obsess over).

Someone must feel that there is a prize for the greatest stupidity in the world and is competing for it.

Lago Fri, Aug 23, 2013 5:36:58pm

I do not work for the NSA, but I do work in the intelligence community. And while I have absolutely no special knowledge of the specifics of any of this (well, not too much) I do know that United States Persons (USP) restrictions are taken deadly seriously. Not only is violating a USP restriction a good way to lose your clearance (which is like being disbarred), but it is also a profound taboo.

Believe it or not, people who work at NSA are not itchin’ to violate the 4th Amendment. This isn’t a “trust them” excuse. It’s just trying to establish a little context. I mean, we trust our military with nuclear weapons and all sorts of explosive things not only because of the checks and balances, but because we assume that soldiers are not all that into bombing their own people.

The same thing goes for people in the Intelligence Community. They are overwhelmingly patriotic people who believe passionately in the law. I mean, they surf the web and make phone calls too.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Bloomberg: Multiple Cases of Intentional NSA Abuse! (i.e. 10 in 10 Years)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud