Without the Snowdens, Mannings, and Ellsbergs there is no way for ordinary citizens to learn what their government is really up to.. Of course stories like the OP could be complete bullshit. There is no way to know without a Snowden. Reporters can make-up anything about a secret operation, and who is there to correct them? No one. Secrecy in government is, for the most part, a very dangerous thing. Read "Secrecy" by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
If someone secretly breaks the law by secretly abusing the secret surveillance domestically, they need to be be secretly arrested and secretly tried by a secret court and secretly sentenced by a judge who then secretly sends him/her to a secret facility where they are secretly incarcerated or secretly executed. In the Land of the Brave, Home of the Freeeeeeeee............. Reagan: "I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help." Today: "I'm from the gov't. Just trust me." Strange how some laugh at the 1st, but accept the 2nd.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/sensenbrenner-slams-nsa-to-european-parliament/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...thor-calls-feinsteins-nsa-reform-bill-a-joke/ Since the President said we should debate this, then maybe the 1st question is: If the people elect their chosen representatives to collectively direct the government in DC via their votes on legislation, but those representatives base their votes on false information provided by other agencies (Clapper's "least false" defense). then who is truly directing the course of government?
There is some reporting, but nowhere near enough. ********************************************** http://www.latimes.com/opinion/comm...-power-20131208,0,7397576.story#axzz2mpgHvWcx When President George W. Bush was in office, Democrats criticized his go-it-alone approach â his insistence, for example, that he could launch military attacks without Congress' blessing, or unilaterally tighten restrictions on the use of stem cells in federally funded research. But the last five years have shown that many on the left are willing to turn a blind eye to unchecked executive action when a Democrat is in the White House. ******************************************** http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/25/nixon-has-won-watergate/2019443/ Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley: âThe painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be. Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an âimperial presidencyâ with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments...â ********************************************** http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/14/is-obama-worse-for-press-freedom-than-nixon.html "James Goodale defended the New York Times during the Pentagon Papers. But Nixon had nothing on Obama, writes the First Amendment lawyerâand thatâs bad news for freedom of the press... President Barack H. Obamaâs outrageous seizure of the Associated Pressâs phone records, allegedly to discover sources of leaks, should surprise no one. Obama has relentlessly pursued leakers ever since he became president. He is fast becoming the worst national security press president ever, and it may not get any better." *********************************************** http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-10-10-02-45 REPORT: OBAMA BRINGS CHILLING EFFECT ON JOURNALISM BY BRETT ZONGKER ASSOCIATED PRESS "In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press," wrote Downie, now a journalism professor at Arizona State University. "The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate."