NSA stuff. (Just by typing "NSA", does that set off some sort of red flag in their system?)

So, a federal judge has given the NSA his thumbs-up. I'd say that he's a no-good rat, but for some reason, a voice in the back of my head is telling me that to remain ethical, I need to remain objective ( as if the establishment plays by the same rules).

He gave some half-assed, over-warmed excuse in which he used the trigger phrases "9/11" and "war on terror" ... and so, no one can resisting exclaiming, "WOOOOO HOOOO!!! Gimme SECURITY, NOT that lame-ass ol' (pffft!) 'freedom'!!!" (...umm, I guess. Does anyone actually buy even that crap anymore? Does the general public even understand words anymore?)

Hmm...are Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz protesting, "Huh, huh, wuh, HUHHHNNHH??!! Obama killed Bin Laden way back when (praise the salvation he has bestowed upon us!) he was first in office! So al-Qaeda isn't an issue anymore! What's the NSA on about?! How dare they operate as if he-who-sends-tingles-down-our-legs hasn't stopped everything bad, for all time, forever?!" Yeah, I know -- they're probably not saying that. They're probably just saying that poor besieged Obama isn't in the position to undo a holdover from the evilness that was the Bush era. And, in the sense that the sneakiness which the NSA is up to has some pretty damn firm roots in the Bush era (ALL the way back in it, as we'll see below), they're not wrong. But, the thing is, the next time there's a president wearing the "Republican" sash, they'll act like all that stuff just started and be all worked up about what an evil new thing this is evil new Republican president is doing. Meanwhile, Republicans will be pro-war and pro-police state again.  (You'd think people who are adults would stop playing this silly game, get over their "team" allegiances, admit that Bush and Obama should be spending the rest of their days as cellmates, and urge their fellow Americans to seek a president who'll put an end to all drone strikes, the use by the CIA of al-Qaeda as a proxy, the NSA surveillance grid, and repeal the last few NDAA's, as well as the Patriot Act. But that's just me.)

Anyway, time to address Judge Pauley phoning in the ol' "Afer 9/11, it's a WHOLE [BRAVE] NEW WORLD!" trope. (Pre-2008, any liberal pundit or blogger would've said, "ol' neocon trope". I certainly once would've, too. By every right, it still applies -- with people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly having uttered many variations of that line, it's what what makes neocons statists and not libertarians. But at this point in time, if I use it, the die-hard left will just think, "Yeahhhh, that's that RIGHTWING stuff that Obama doesn't do any of!" But then, by not using it, it's not as though I'm causing them to wake up. So, I'll just leave it at that on the eve of 2014, it's an irrelevant term.)

The thing is, your honor(?), according to this documented, dated December 2000, the NSA was already committed to and geared up for implementing a mass surveillance grid.

Here's some choice excerpts:

"NSA must respond quickly and comprehensively to the deployment of new information technology into global networks."

"This vulnerability extends beyond classified and national security networks to the the private sector infrastructure on which all depend. At the same time, because of the communications environment described above, availability of critical foreign intelligence information will mean gaining access in new places and in new ways."

At other points in the document, there are cryptic references to the NSA's "customers" and to the NSA finding "new lines of business". And don't even get me started on the outlined "strategies" that explicitly call for fostering cozy, "We'll scratch your backs..." relationships with Congress and the news media.

"News media representatives were invited inside NSA along with the families of employees during last September's NSA Faily Day."

No comment.

-- Ryan