We are being manipulated to miss the point.

[woo me with science]

The point is not whether laws have been passed to allow the spying. All governments that turn authoritarian attempt to "legalize" what they do.

The point is not whether anyone listens to the phone calls, although we have no reason whatsoever to trust that they don't/won't.

The point is not even that the FISA court is rubber stamping every single request that it receives, although this fact certainly drives home what a kangaroo court and illusion of responsible legal oversight we are dealing with here.

The point is that the Fourth Amendment REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE before the United States government may intrude into the privacy of citizens.

When a criminal is loose in this country, the government may not send out police officers en masse to demand entry into and search every home of millions of Americans in an attempt to find him. They need probable cause to invade your privacy...to have access to your home and your private life and information.

Our government has now outrageously decided that it has the right to preemptively demand, sweep up, and STORE the daily, detailed private activities and communication information of every American citizen. That they promise to get warrants to view or use the information after they collect it is outrageously beside the point. They have no business whatsoever collecting it and storing it for government use *in the first place.*

The propagandists are deliberately creating arguments about the circumstances under which the stored material may be viewed, or the process by which permission to view it is obtained. They are deliberately and manipulatively trying to frame the debate so that the sweeping collection/storage of our private material is a GIVEN, and we fight about the legal process that occurs afterward for use of the data.

Building surveillance files full of the private, daily activities and communication of millions of citizens is what totalitarian governments do. It creates an entire infrastructure through which the government has the means to preemptively target any citizen they consider problematic, through access to the minute details of their lives. It is an invitation to abuse and tyranny.

Read the Fourth Amendment again:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On what probable cause does the US government have the right to demand, collect, and store the contents of YOUR daily private phone calls, emails, and internet activity, and that of millions of other Americans?

[Gregorian]

1. They're trying to find probable cause. And that crosses a line.

It's one thing to see what looks like a drunk driver, and then pull them over. But to sit in our dining rooms and watch what we're doing, in order to find out if we've been drinking before we drive is to cross a line that divides countries like America from those with fascist regimes.

[nineteen50]

65. How else will they

be able to control protest and dissent for the benefit of the 1%?

[Civilization2]

69. Exactly, this has nothing to do with "terrorism", and all to do with the new corporate police-state.

It is amazing how people are so easily duped by the shock-and-awe of 9/11 into supporting a private mercenary corporate police-state,. 3000 people are killed every month by gun violence and gun legislation can not pass? however the mercenaries can have the right to spy and shoot to kill and the word "terrorist" need only be alluded to and all is well,. .

[SkyDaddy7]

77. They control protest & real descent by...

calling in the REAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATORS...And it is by far NOT the NSA! The so-called outrage over the NSA wiretapping is MISGUIDED...State & local police violate more civil liberties in one day than the NSA will EVER DO!!!

The diversion is from what state & local law enforcement does to what the Federal Government is doing...The most violations of civil liberties come at the hands of state & local law enforcement & state & local governments, period end of discussion!! It is not even close!!!

Yet here we are running around crying & screaming about how bad the NSA is...Fucking SAD!!!

[nineteen50]

79. Keep telling yourself that.

[SkyDaddy7]

80. Please prove me wrong?!?!

The Federal Government violates far fewer civil liberties than do state & local governments...Seriously, try THINKING for just 5 seconds before knee jerking "Keep telling yourself that."

Your comment is EXACTLY why America is in the shape its in...Knee jerkin rather than THINKING!! SAD!!

[nineteen50]

82. What do you think happened to

occupy?

[rhett o rick]

92. First of all, even if the local authorities are doing worse doesnt justify the NSA doing the same.

Second, you dont know how "bad" the NSA is. We wont know unless we look. I am not running around saying how bad the NSA is, I am running around saying let's see how bad or good they are. Others are running around saying "dont look, dont look" or "Look over there, Greenwald's mom wears Army boots.

Democracy demands transparency. Authoritarian states love secrecy.

[bvar22]

94. Ahhh, Local Police Forces do not have those capabilities,

but you are correct in stating the they TOO are exceeding what our constitution allows on a daily basis.

We ARE capable of addressing BOTH issues,
and BOTH issues ARE in the public spotlight thanks to the omni-present cell phone cameras.
Have you noticed all the videos that are showing up on YouTube and local news stations?
There are also MANY threads on DU documenting and protesting this abuse.

THIS particular thread is about the abuses of the NSA and Federal Government,
and your interruption to address another issue IS a diversion from the Topic at Hand.

I hope that raising national Awareness to the Militarization and national Coordination of our local Police Forces will be a natural outgrowth of the current discussion of the Bi-Partisan support for the growth of the Police State Powers of the Executive Branch.

[Babel_17]

83. Checking your cell phone to see if you've been in a place that serves liquor (nt)

[dkf]

2. Nobody is saying that you broke any laws, what we're saying is...

it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to. - John Oliver


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-oliver-daily-show-debut-june-10-jon-stewart-nsa-scandal-2013-6#ixzz2VxrJbX4I

[ProSense]

3. Actually,

"The point is not whether laws have been passed to allow the spying. All governments that turn authoritarian attempt to "legalize" what they do. "

...no laws have been passed to allow "spying."

The point is the Fourth Amendment REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE before the United States government may intrude into the privacy of citizens.

When a criminal is loose in this country, the government may not send out police officers en masse to demand entry into and search every home of millions of Americans in an attempt to find him. They need probable cause to invade your privacy...to have access to your home and your private life and information.

Our government has now outrageously decided that it has the right to preemptively demand, sweep up, and STORE the daily, detailed private activities and communication information of every American citizen. That they promise to get warrants to view or use the information after they collect it is outrageously beside the point. They have no business whatsoever collecting it and storing it *in the first place.*

Aside from the flawed analogy, the warrants are the point, and the court issued a decision on metadata decades ago.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966764

Bush broke the law. President Obama followed it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022990450

No one is being "manipulated to miss the point." The debate is about the scope of the data. It's also about the secrecy of the FISA court.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

5. the debate is about the right of the government to preemptively harvest and store ALL our

communications WITHOUT probable cause.

That appears to be a clear violation of the 4th amendment and why the SCOTUS has been avoiding dealing with it.

But thanks to the recent revelations, we may now be able to bring a court case forward as the names of individuals being spied upon were also released by Snowden.

BTW: That law you site is from 1979, and does not cover the harvesting and storing of ALL communications.

[cheapdate]

25. The date of a court decision isn't much of a factor in US jurisprudence.

Rulings establish precedent.

The court ruled long ago (Smith v. Maryland, 1855) that when we voluntarily divulge personal information to any third party, we waive our privacy rights and lose all Fourth Amendment protection over that information.

In the 1970s, the court extended that logic to phone calls. The argument was that since we “share” the phone numbers we dial with the phone company – which needs that information to connect the call – we can’t claim any constitutional protection when the government asks for that data.

Congress compounded the problem in the 1980s by codifying a lesser standard of protection for metadata.

The present conservative court is likely to be inclined to continue in this fashion.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Here's a link to the full-text opinion of Smith v. Maryland, 1855

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/59/71/case.html

Where does it say, as you said it does,

"that when we voluntarily divulge personal information to any third party, we waive our privacy rights and lose all Fourth Amendment protection over that information"?

[cheapdate]

56. That description of the precedent established in Smith v. Maryland, 1855

was found at the ACLU website in a piece explaining a brief history of the court's rulings on the Fourth Amendment as it relates to phone records. It was written by Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst at The ACLU. Honestly, I should have enclosed it in quotation marks and given the link. Here it is:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/why-government-access-metadata-more-modest

(follow the hyperlink to the "full piece".)

You are right -- there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the Forth Amendment in Smith v. Maryland. The ACLU is generally a credible source. I'm at a loss to explain the disconnect.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. 1979 - Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)?

[truedelphi]

38. But if the American people are smart enough to stand up

For the Fourth Amendment, then our Congress critters might be inclined to pass legislation that stops this PRISM shit.

And it is all being done for profit, plain and simple. Our government is so fractured, with all the different agencies, NSA, CIA, HSD, FBI, etc., that this surveillance scares me mostly for the following two reasons:

One) The expense. Our society has heard about all the austerity measures we need - and how it is not possible to have our schools intact, or have our bridges repaired, or fire fighters, etc. But we have the money for these huge complexes that are being built to accommodate the needed staff and computers and what not for all this surveillance? Give me a break!

Two) Being used as a punitive measure. We just saw the IRS grilled about it targeting the tax returns of the RW. But does anyone think if the Republicans get in, that Democratic groups wouldn't be surveilled? And both parties treat certain Big Corporations like Sacred Cows; Monsanto and the Big Financial Firms are protected by both sides of the aisle. I really don't want the people who are community minded and doing organazing against Monsanto to be reamed by this surveillance. But I am certain that if this isn't stopped, it will be those of us who organize that will be hurt.

[marions ghost]

53. It's up to the People to object

but will we? If we don't object, it WILL continue. If we walk away from this moment....we may not get another chance. The hand that takes will continue to squeeze us.

How do we stop PRISM?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

48. True and that ruling doesn't cover what we are talking about today

[graham4anything]

51. +1. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. You need to read Smith v Maryland where it doesn't actually say that, or at least # 3 above.

[JDPriestly]

88. 1979. That was long before the government had this massive

computer capacity. The law doesn't work the way people think it does. Each case brought to the Supreme Court is based on facts that distinguish that case from the prior cases. So a decision made in 1979, without being "overturned" could easily declare this kind of massive spying to be a violation of the Constitution.

Obtaining the pen register on a gambling enterprise or a business that is cheating or violating the law requires a warrant based on probably cause.

But a case involving obtaining records en masse as the court order that was attached to Greenwald's first Guardian article did presents new facts. I don't believe any court has looked at this situation.

Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, those are just a couple of cases that illustrate how the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time.

If what I am explaining were not true, there would be no work for constitutional lawyers. Everything would have been set in stone long ago.

One of the problems with this massive surveillance and especially with the collection of data on calls to and from reporters is that it chills our right to a free press. And without a free press we have no democracy. We sink into dictatorship. And that is just one example of a right that this program chills. I can't say for sure, but I hope this program is Dead on Arrival at the Supreme Court.

I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court justices want the administration, any administration, to have a record of all their calls, both professional and personal.

[graham4anything]

89. Look at guns, when the 2nd was written, they were talking about cannons and such.

Now, according to the 2nd, one can argue every single person in America could own a shouldertoairmissile and claim the 2nd.

Or
it's like tax on the internet
Of course there should be sales tax on the net, like there is for mom/pops brick/mortar stores.
But people have gotten away without it thanks to it not specifically saying it.
But shortly there will be an even playing field again.

Just because the cold war ends, doesn't mean war ended.

and do you really think THIS Scotus will rule stopping it?

which is why, IMHO, this is one of the reasons among many, for this smear to come up now- to force an early ruling on it,
with THIS 4 to 5 court.

do you think Scalia and Alito will rule against the Bush's?

[L0oniX]

64. Thanks for illustrating the ops point.

Geeze ...talk about "manipulated to miss the point"

[Android3.14]

68. Can't help but notice

The two groups, those who support civil liberties and those who think Obama can never-ever-ever cross a line because, you know, Britney Spears..like..represents their Constitutional philosophy, are definitely starting to go for civil liberty support.
Eventually you will be talking to yourself, ProSense.
It's funny, I've been a member since 2006, ProSense since 2005. Prior to being more active here, I was a regular at SmirkingChimp since 2000. The funny bit is how it appears to be a point of legitimacy for some on a political board that a person with a high number of postings is a better Democrat than one who does not post as often. Granted, low numbers in the single digits and trollish behavior is suspicious, but super large numbers don;t seem to coincide with common sense.
After some of the nonsense I've read from this person, I have to wonder about that faux legitimacy. In the case of ProSense, who has 99,000+ postings, s/he would have to post between 200 and 300 messages each week, every week, for the past eight years. That's 30-40 each day, 24/7, including holidays. I barely have time to post once or twice a day if I am lucky, and that's if I give my messages little thought.
Seems odd.

[JaneyVee]

4. Founding fathers explicitly sanctioned

collection of metadata without a warrant as long there was no direct access to servers.

[GoneFishin]

8. LOL.

Really? Cool.

[brett_jv]

13. Founding fathers explicitly outlawed

collection of metadata without a warrant as long there was no direct access to servers.



See, it works both ways.

[Egalitarian Thug]

37. Except that, in your example, they did.

There is some wisdom in playing in your own league until you develop the skills to move up.

DU isn't the bigs, but it's apparently a couple of levels above your current skills.

[CrispyQ]

57. WTF?

Why so nasty to a new comer?

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. Just tired of right-wing idiocy being thrown out in quantities suitable to yahoo or

any site with 'red' in the title.

[CrispyQ]

101. Got it.

You did good here, though!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999446#post24

[A Simple Game]

66. Awww, having a bad day, or just want to show everyone what league you really should be in? n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. I'm sorry, did you have a point, or is it just a need to defend wrong? n/t

[A Simple Game]

90. I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood, I wasn't defending you. n/t

[rhett o rick]

93. When all else fails go to the snark. nm

[Egalitarian Thug]

96. Snark that makes the point is grist for the mill. What would be DU w/o snark...

[dflprincess]

6. I'll bet Benjamin Frankin is spinning in his grave

at a rate that would register on the Richter Scale.

[backscatter712]

19. I think we just solved the world's energy crisis!

We just hook generators to the Founding Fathers' graves, and we've got limitless energy from the spinning!

[limpyhobbler]

7. Apparently some people enjoy taking a crap on the Constitution.

Not naming any names but some of them are running the US government. Also some of them are on the internet.

[snot]

9. Probably cause PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING the things to be seized.

Like stolen booty or a murder weapon.

Not like, we're going to vacuum up everything you've got so we can sift through it later in case it turns out we need something we can use to render you powerless to stop us from doing what we want.

[msongs]

10. sorry Woo...it's all ok cuz the courts have said it's "legal" according to them only nt

[backscatter712]

20. The courts said slavery was legal, and black people weren't human beings.

It took a war to undo that SCOTUS clusterfuck.

[Honeycombe8]

11. There is a question as to whether a person has a right of privacy to a LOG of activities.

If they're not actually listening in on a phone conversation (which they say they aren't, except for a few w/probable cause...but we know better...but let's say they aren't, for the sake of argument), then it becomes a question as to whether a log that tells them a phone call occurred is covered by the 4th Amendment. Or a log that you chatted on a blog, or a log that tells them you posted on fb.

It has not been established that anything anyone does on the internet is covered by the 4th amendment, has it?

[Amonester]

12. Well, we do know that we don't own the Internet, so that by not 'owning' it...

since it's not 'our' personal property, everything we do on it may not actually belong to ... gulp... us.

I mean, technically (dunno about legally).

[brett_jv]

18. No, it has not ...

And arguably, telephone call meta-data, without any name associated with it ... is pretty easily argued as being the property of the phone company.

IMHO, instead of wasting time bashing Obama as a 'fascist, totalitarian', people who have a problem w/all this should be working to get a law passed (or to get a high court to decide a case) that clearly states that 'your' meta-data belongs to YOU, even if such data is not explicitly associated with your name.

I wish you all the best w/that, I hope you can 'win'. But my sense is ... not going to happen. W/O your name attached, those records almost certainly 'belong' to the phone company. And it's not really not even an unreasonable argument to say that it really SHOULD be considered 'theirs'.

The meta-data describing 'everyone's phone calls', *without* their names associated with the numbers, is not NECESSARILY 'your person, house, effects, or paperwork'. You can kick and scream and cry and whine and cry foul and bash Obama and tell everyone that disagrees with you that they're brainwashed ... until you're blue in the friggin' face. But you aren't going to change the LEGAL reality that of the fact that there's nothing on the books that says 'that data is YOURS (i.e. the customers)'.

And therefore ... all manner of 'entities' can easily claim that it's NOT, in fact, 'yours'.

[Amonester]

24. Like, if YOU don't want anyone to sneek on what you consider YOUR privacy...

1. Don't talk on any phone (alternative: devise your own 'touchtone' code and send your private protocol instructions to everyone you want to communicate with using your OWN carrier pigeon system).

2. Stop using the Intertubes: you don't OWN it (you give away your privacy when you use a carrier that does not belong to you, and I have no idea to whom it does really belong to so don't even ask me, I don't care).


Think before you act.

(Not addressed to you personally, brett_jv, just a more profound examination of this than usual.)

[Volaris]

29. "...is pretty easily argued as being the property of the phone company..."

not if the phone company doesn't (as an Incorporated entity) have a Constitutional Right to claim ownership of that property in the first place.

Search and Seziure of Personal papers and Property was a damn-sight easier at the time of the writing of the 4th, because it was JUST Persons that the Government had to worry about dealing with within the bounds of Law. At the time, corporations were NOT allowed legally to own property, papers, or anything of the sort that the Government would need a Warrant to confiscate. Take out the middleman, as it were, and you sure as hell have a sound Legal argument that Uncle Sam overstepped The Line...but as long as that data belongs to "Them" (the Corps.) and not "Me", (the Person) well, then "THEY" can do whatever the hell they want with it. Warrant from the Government, or no.

(If Republican, small government telecom CEO's really were as believing in Small Government as they like to claim, one would like to think they would have told the Big, Bad Govt. to come back with a Warrant, or bugger off. This is just more proof that they ONLY dislike Govt when it works AGAINST their monetary interest.)

[zeemike]

21. Seems pretty clear to me...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

I think the intent is that your activities no matter what they are or where it is done is protected....and it says SHALL NOT...the most positive of statements.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. K&R! I cannot believe anyone here, ANYONE, would even suggest the suspension

of sections of the Constitution for any reason whatsoever.

That anyone would, especially UNDERGROUND resistance Democrats, fighting this very bullshit from day one of this forum, shows how very well the neocons have catapulted the propaganda.

THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S POLICY. Why would anyone possibly defend it?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. Thank you. Very well said.

[reformist2]

15. Things will not be made right unless and until they erase the database.

[DallasNE]

17. The 4th Amendment Has Been On Life Support For A Long Time

No warrant is necessary to search your car. If you refuse to open your trunk they will take a crow bar and force it open -- happens all of the time, especially if found driving while black. No warrant is necessary to listen to your cell phone calls or search your computer if it happens to be in your car. The word "effects" is completely ignored. How is it "secure in their persons" if you are a passenger in a car pulled over for a partially broken tail light and they frisk you and find a single joint in your pocket. Where is the probable cause? Like I say, the 4th Amendment has been on life support for a long time.

[LibDemAlways]

23. Not to mention all of the bullshit searches at the

airport where every passenger - from the smallest infant to the oldest grandma - is treated as a terror suspect.

Life support has been removed. 4th amendment is dead.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. The government sanctioned feel-ups, even random ones, are outrageous.

[LibDemAlways]

36. Being forced into an x-ray or feel up, with no

probable cause whatever, as a condition for boarding an aircraft is about as egregious a violation of the 4th amendment as I can think of. The founding fathers would be ashamed that the traveling public accepts this bs as the norm.

[truedelphi]

40. And meanwhile, the Saudi family that had supported Mohammed Atta

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Was able to whisk themselves away - with nor repercussions for their involvement in Nine Eleven, because, uh because, well, maybe they knew the Bush family? While you and I and every other middle class person has to divest themselves of shoes, clothes,dignity, etc when boarding a plane.

Sibel Edmond does a nice job of telling that tale:

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/05/the-doj-fbi-have-it-both-ways-aint-nothing-here-but-the-nothing-is-highly-classified-sensitive/

[Amonester]

26. Even WORSE when they've PLANTED the joint in your pocket.

Happened once here (not to me).

[suffragette]

22. K&R

[Scootaloo]

27. Probable cause is awfully "wobbly"

Here's the "logic":

The NSA and its agents exist to watch over the safety and well-being of Americans, at least in principle.
The NSA is thus sure that the NSA is not "the bad guy."
However...
Most people are not in the NSA. I'm not. Are you? Probably not.
Therefore, since the only people the NSA knows are the "good guys" are the NSA agents themselves, the rest of us become suspects.
Just by not being "in," we fall under probable cause.

It's the same seige mentality you see from the police, where everyone is a "potential criminal" except, of course, for the police themselves

[leftstreet]

28. DURec

[sabrina 1]

30. Good luck getting n answer to that question. I have asked, but got the run around mostly.

As a Verizon customer I never got any notice that any court issued a warrant to seize my record of calls because a prosecutor presented a good argument demonstrating probable cause of any wrong doing on my part.

Maybe I will get some notification in the future, I would love to see it since I had no idea my phone calls were being monitored, data as to how long my conversations were etc, stored, collected or whatever the hell they were doing.

It's very creepy to know that some Private For Profit Contractor whose former employee is now the Director of Intelligence (conflict of interest maybe?) who I never heard of until yesterday, was secretly looking at my phone info. I feel like I have been spied on, like there are peeping toms around and it's not a good feeling.

I'd like to see some public exposure of WHO is watching me.

It's literally impossible to get a warrant on millions of people WITH probable cause. So right there they have violated the law that supercedes all other laws.

Since we are being told that our government, all of whom took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, were aware of these violations, who do we go to for recourse?

[truedelphi]

41. And don't you get the feeling that a lot of this is being done

So the folks in the loop (Like Sen Di Feinstein and her Richard Blum Sweetums) can make another killing off government contracts?

See my reply number 36 above which demonstrates how the government really is not about caring about Nine Eleven or the REAL BAD GUYS. It's is us schmucks that matter as targets of their surveillance - the 290 million of us who are not well connected enough to matter, and who get probed at the airports, hassled by police etc. With 290 million of us to target, it means an ever expanding budget.

[sabrina 1]

42. Absolutely! I said yesterday that we should 'follow the money' to find out why they are keeping

records on millions of Americans. It makes no sense, UNLESS it is some kind of data mining for business purposes, along with an occasional opportunity to go after some protesters who are opposing their buddies on Wall St.

Take Clapper eg, he is now Director of Intelligence!! He was a former (and probably future) employee of Booz Allen, one of the 'Security' Corps who get billions of dollars in contracts from the government. Needless to say they would be out of business were it not for the phony WOT. And having someone in such a position as Director of Intelligence, a man who proved just yesterday that he is a liar, someone with questionable ethics, could be very helpful to a big 'Security' Corporation.

He's a Republican too, as is the corporation he worked for.

I am beginning to think this is all about money. But if that were to be proven it would end the billions of dollars they get for 'security'. Nothing would surprise me, that the whole WOT was nothing more than a giant Con Game to enrich these Contractors whose funds were drying up after the fall of the Soviet Union.

There needs to be in depth investigations into just what has been going on with our tax dollars and just who these people are who have our private information in their hands.

[truedelphi]

43. Sadly, don't you also get the feeling that we will never get that investigation?

I mean, is Feinstein gonna demand that she investigate herself? I sort of doubt it. Greenwald and Ellsberg have both suggested a special committee, but most of the creeps we have in Congress are so bought and paid for - I mean, sure historically there is the precedent of what the Frank Church committee on the CIA uncovered, but that was way back when there were quite a number of Congress people with integrity. Nothing suggests that we have that now.

[sabrina 1]

44. Well, they may be forced to do something, but I am not stupid enough to think that if they are

finally pressured into it, they won't use it to THEIR advantage. So I guess yes, I am sad to think it won't happen in this country, we have allowed them to get too much power.

After the sham 9/11 hearings with its 'secret Bush/Cheney' testimony and time limits on testimony making it all but impossible to get any facts out there, I lost faith that we will ever have an honest investigation again.

Maybe it's too late for this country, too much power has passed from the people to the Corporations and maybe as one DUer said tonight, it's best to just try to live out your life and take care of your own corner of the world and hope they leave you alone. Just 'watch what you say' as Ari told us, and maybe like in other oppressed and spied on populations, you can manage to survive.

[Melinda]

72. And Clapper was appointed Director of NSA by.... wait for it....

PBO. Just another one of his oh so many Republican appointees. Mind blowing, isn't it. Go figure.

President Obama made the official announcement on June 5, 2010 saying Clapper "possesses a quality that I value in all my advisers: a willingness to tell leaders what we need to know even if it's not what we want to hear*."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

* Willingness to lie.

[Life Long Dem]

33. Case law

Smith v. Maryland.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

This ruling said that by "giving" data (such as phone numbers) to a "third party" (such as a phone company) you had given up any expectation of privacy in that data...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/10020823374/real-scandal-not-that-nsa-broke-law-vast-spying-that-it-probably-didnt.shtml

They have no business whatsoever collecting it and storing it for government use *in the first place.*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997125

[DallasNE]

45. What Does "Effects" Mean In The 4th Amendment

Seriously. I can't find a good definition but would take it to mean the stuff that you can take with you, like your car, cell phone, back pack, etc. The best dictionary definition I could come up with is "personal effects personal property or belongings" but that has the qualification of "personal". Obviously, the 4th Amendment has been watered down by court ruling to the point that the language no longer has any English meaning. There is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy outside of your own home. Even then if a police officer knocks on your door if you don't let them in they will assume probable cause, take you downtown and book you while also using that to get the search warrant to go fishing for what ever they are looking for. The 4th Amendment, in other words, is dead. About the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that is not dead is the 2nd Amendment, which has actually gotten more powerful.

[Life Long Dem]

63. I'd say effects means 'personal property'

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. What has happened to this country? Where's the outrage from the ABA? Or from other Bar Associations?

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. You kidding? If anyone can tell which way the wind is blowing, it's attorneys. n/t

[octoberlib]

46. The Communist Menace has become the Islamist Menace

Fear = money. Here's what you do, tell the party in power (who has a reputation for being weak on defense) that another terrorist attack(or a nuclear bomb ,back in the day) is imminent and if they don't do this and this and that , they will be blamed for the deaths of American citizens. Scare the crap out of them. Then instill that same fear in American citizens so they'll support the politicians. This has been a very lucrative formula for the MIC for decades.

[TakeALeftTurn]

47. Well said - An excellent OP

.

[RainDog]

49. k&r n/t

[piratefish08]

50. all I've learned this week is that we should save our rage and aim it at the next Repub president.

[graham4anything]

52. Why not just never elect another Bush, that would be more productive of course.

[joshcryer]

54. I'm not aware of efforts to distance the 4th Amendment from the argument.

In fact it is the central core of the argument whenever I see the argument stated.

[Laelth]

55. Hmm ...

I have to disagree. I think the government has probable cause to believe that out of the billions of phone calls made to and from the United States every year that at least one of those calls presents a risk to national security. The government has probable cause.

What they don't have is particularity. This is the part of the 4th Amendment that I think is being violated:

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The FISA warrant released by Snowden is way too broad. It does not specify the persons or specific things to be seized. The blanket dragnet being conducted lacks any particularity. That, I think, is the best Constitutional argument. As I have said elsewhere, we need new guidance from the SCOTUS on this issue.

-Laelth

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. "we need new guidance from the SCOTUS"? What if the SCOTUS is in the tank on this one?

[Laelth]

61. They may be.

If so, and if they ruled that all this data Collection is Constitutional, then at least President Obama and the Democratic Party would have some cover. We'd be able to point at the SCOTUS ruling and say, "See, it's all Constitutional, but if you're mad about it (like we are), you need to give us another Democratic President so that we can replace the fascists on the Court."

That's the best I can hope for.



-Laelth

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. Sooner or later, the general public is going to learn that Justice Kagan was opposed to

the Miranda rule before her appointment and thereafter when she subsequently joined
the conservative bloc in Howes v. Fields to further undermine Miranda.
http://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/10-680.pdf

[Zorra]

59. Oh, but woo, we're being told that people who live in the "real world"

recognize that times have changed and that the Constitution is just a silly antiquated set of rules, and is moot in this new "real world".

I fear that the effects of the systematic Dumbing Down Of America that began under St. Ronald, Patron Saint of the Third Way, will never be totally undone.

[msanthrope]

67. I find your 4th amendment analysis facile, like 2nd amendment analysis

that fails to account for legislation and jurisprudence.

Thus...repeating an amendment, or part of an amendment without reference to the body of laws that define that amendment does a disservice to our Constitution which was not meant to be such a simplistic document.

[Vinnie From Indy]

70. It is as though the current folks in Washington

want us to forget one of THE fundamental reasons we fought the Revolutionary War - the General Warrant or Writ of Assistance.

[Demo_Chris]

71. Think this is bad? This is the same government that claims the right to KILL Americans...

With no trial, no judicial or congressional review, no due process, no nothing. Anytime and anywhere, secret death at the President's whim.

Kinda puts something as minor as spying into perspective, but more it illustrates the mindset of the men who demand this power, and the ignorance of those who excuse it.

[Locrian]

73. well...

>>On what probable cause does the US government have the right to demand, collect, and store the contents of YOUR daily private phone calls, emails, and internet activity, and that of millions of other Americans?


When you create a 'war on terror' that's 24/7/365 - then claim 'imminent threat', then claim '*they* are gonna get us'....terror, terror, terror 24/7/365.
I keep saying all they have to do is wreck things, and the results play right into their hands.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

76. Not to stir up trouble, but what do we, the little guys, do about this?

How do we counter this use of fear to create markets that allows corporations to be awarded contracts to loot tax dollars, or in other words, endless wars for endless profits.

Our government didn't have to take this route, it didn't need to use these methods by hiring private contractors to
Look at, or search our personal papers (call them emails), or effects (call them phone calls), without probable cause.

Had enough? Where's the tipping point?

General strike? Do we have the right for a non-violent revolution?

Any thoughts?

[felix_numinous]

78. I think many people around here never took civics,

or failed, or took some kind of NEW civics that incorporates new interpretations of the English language. NewSpeak. Truthiness. Resistance is Futile. Go Back to Your Shopping and Regularly Scheduled Programming.

For the woo.

[WillyT]

81. K & R !!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. "On what probable cause does the US government have the right...?"

"9 11!! 9 11!! 9 11!!"

[backscatter712]

85. Ah, memories!

[sevenseas]

86. Am I missing something or is this generational?

In the 1950's we wanted ALL the spying we could get- we were afraid the Russians would knock on our doors and take over.... sounds like a joke now, but we were scared.... so we were supportive of everything we could do to spy and pry. NOW BECAUSE your little thumb keyboards are being watched, and your fascinating emails are being recorded it makes spying an outrage! GASP!!! And people like the Tsarnaev brothers heartily agree with you as they are laughing at you. To say we Americans are naive is an understatement.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

87. I have it on good authority that a lot of that fear in the fifties

was manufactured by the MIC to build up and sell weapon systems.
It worked and was wildly successful and is still a favorite tactic today.
We Americans might be naive but for corporations it's pure greed.

[blkmusclmachine]

91. Don't trust the apologists/cheerleaders/sock puppets.

THEY LIE.

[bvar22]

95. What this guy said. ^

[indepat]

97. Big brother probably has probable cause to believe if billions of communications are harvested and

stored daily, somewhere in those billions of communications, something is likely to have been said or written that seems fishy enough to fish out more information.

[CarrieLynne]

98. I was pissed when W started this shit...now obama continues it...im terrified....

[chimpymustgo]

99. We are being manipulated to disregard the CONSTITUTION. I'm stunned and ashamed at some reactions.

What the hell do we STAND for? Regardless of who is President!!!

Think, people! Think!!!

-edit-

Read the Fourth Amendment again:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-edit-

[Canuckistanian]

100. FIGHT THIS

Fight for the letter AND THE SPIRIT of the 4th Amendment.

It was put there for a REASON.

[TBF]

102. Thank you. K&R nt

[kitt6]

103. Now this is a balanced response.

[link:http://|][link:http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/12/obamas-dangerous-dilemma/|