Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (134317)	6/9/2013 10:55:28 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 149317

You may start to make your own judgements and pass comments as you please. My sense is that many would want to know the facts first, particularly so when all the three branches of Govt. were involved. Notice all the politics going on in DC such as in this IRS issue. Issa wants to do what Boehner wants which is to see someone go to jail. There goes Boehner again: passing a judgement before the facts are in with Issa in tow. And then you have Elijah Cummings threatening to release the proceedings if Issa as Chair does not do so. ================================= Issa urged to release IRS interviews Democrat Cummings: ‘Wrap this up and move on' By Jason Hargraves The Washington Times Sunday, June 9, 2013 Two employees from the Internal Revenue Service’s Cincinnati office involved in the targeting of conservative groups have met with House investigators, but exactly what was learned from those interviews varies greatly depending on which lawmaker you ask — and which excerpts each has chosen to release to the public contd at washingtontimes.com

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (134317)	6/10/2013 4:35:11 AM
From: ChinuSFO	1 Recommendation Recommended By R2O Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

US media responses A USA Today editorial accepts that "the primary result of Snowden's actions is a plus. He has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created". But, it goes on, "pure motives and laudable effects don't alter the fact that he broke the law". An editorial in the Chicago Tribune argues that "some new restrictions" in the US intelligence gathering programme may be in order, adding: "If the government is looking for, say, calls between the United States and terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, why can't it simply demand records of calls to certain foreign countries. Is there no way to narrow the search to leave most Americans out of it?" Robert O'Harrow in the Washington Post writes that the growing reliance on contractors in US intelligence gathering "reflects a massive shift toward outsourcing over the past 15 years, in part because of cutbacks in the government agencies". He argues that this "has dramatically increased the risk of waste and contracting abuses... but given the threat of terrorism and the national security mandates from Congress, the intelligence community had little choice". --------------------- My comment: (the side I am on) I wonder what laws has Snowden broken. Why is there a law that says that gathering high level data indiscriminately is secret. How is the security of this nation threatened if the people are informed that they are monitoring legally? Wonder if this is the transparency that Obama said he would use his office as President to achieve. After all, wasn't he elected to be the "last man standing" to uphold the people's right to know. I hope he answers the people on why he went along with the "crooks in Congress and Govt" and decided that he could not tell the people. What national security does it breach.