The abuse of FISA, prosecuting whistleblowers, PRISM, kill lists. Guess what. It isn't about Obama

[Nuclear Unicorn]

It's about the guy after him. And then the guy after him and the guy after him. It's about the dark horse candidate whose name we can't even conceive of at this moment who will ride into office on a wave of electoral emotion and assume the helm of a state security apparatus that has insulated itself all efforts to bring it to heel. It's about how that apparatus allows him suppress all threats to the state (by which he means, himself) and a military capable of eliminating anything it catches sight of as well as a congress and media either too weak or too complicit to offer any opposition.

Obama will merely be a chapter in a school kid's history book when that day comes so you can't say it's about Obama. You can't hide behind a defense of Obama to tell us to stop guarding against that day. We're not complaining about Obama -- except to note our soul-shattering disappointment that these things have grown under his tenure after he promised to end them. No, we're looking past Obama. We're looking forward. That's what PROGRESSives do.

[randome]

1. There is a difference between leaking and whistleblowing.

Different words have different legal meanings.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. The abuse of FISA, PRISM, surveilling journalists and kill lists are still realities.

Whether or not those that brought them to our attention are whistleblowers or leakers is irrelevant to the fact that these things are occurring and they will inevitably be used to suppress dissent.

[randome]

11. All the NSA stuff is based on Snowden's ridiculous claims that have no evidence.

Other than the phone metadata which most people, I think, don't care about.

Snowden lied his way into a position of access and stole internal office documents from the NSA.

Take this liar out of the equation and all you are left with regarding the NSA are unfounded fears.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. You contradict yourself

Statement A -- "claims that have no evidence."

Statement B -- "stole internal office documents from the NSA."

If his claims have no evidence then there would be nothing to steal.

[randome]

16. His claim about the phone metadata was obviously correct.

It was backed up by a warrant. A legal warrant, in case anyone isn't clear about that.

All his other nonsense, that the NSA can watch our thoughts form as we type and they are downloading the Internet on a daily basis, even the 'direct access' bullshit that all the affected companies say is, well, bullshit. All these claims derive from the sole purpose of making people afraid so that Snowden can see himself as some type of 'hero'.

If you want me to climb on board the 'quash the President' brigade, you will need to show me evidence.

So far there is none.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. How can it be a legal warrant?

The warrant was issued by the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Court under the auspices of the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act. Nothing about these programs involves foreigners, calls from foreign soil or calls to foreign soil.

Even then it violates the 4th Amendment because --

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.

Please feel free to demonstrate probable cause for EVERYTHING being electronically communicated. Feel free to show where they specified the person or things to be seized.

[randome]

23. First the phone metadata has always been ruled as belonging to the companies, not individuals.

Secondly, why do you keep saying 'everything being electronically communicated'. Again, you are taking Snowden at his word without a shred of evidence.

I always believed that Progressive Thought depended on looking at facts, not fears, and making rational, informed decisions.

This nonsense attached to Snowden makes me wonder if that's a viable stance to take any longer.

Snowden lied. On his resume and about his access level.

He said he 'saw things' but he won't ever tell us what he saw. Why would anyone take what this guy says at face value?

I don't get it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. That MD belongs to the carrier service is irrelevant. It allows a blanket invasion against citizens

What do you think racial profiling is if not "meta-data" manipulation? When Bloomberg's thugs stop and frisk African American males they use no more probable cause than the outward appearing "information" on what their "statistical analyses" tells them a potential criminal should look like.

[randome]

29. 'Irrelevant'? The law permits this and now you say it is irrelevant.

Do you want to change the law? Go ahead. Start a privacy advocacy group or something but to say that the NSA, in following the law, is out of line, simply won't win many over to that way of thinking.

'Racial profiling' is way, way out there so far as this subject is concerned.

But yes, to follow that line of thinking, if someone in the U.S. calls a known terrorist in Istanbul, I would like information about that person collected and turned over to the FBI, which is what happens now.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[GoneFishin]

40. The OP is not about whether they have legal cover or not. All powers try to validate their

actions by passing laws that give them cover. The OP is about where it leads. But you probably know that already.

[randome]

74. Courts have ruled for a hundred years or so that third-party records are not yours.

That's not 'legal cover', it's well-established law.

If it leads to abuses, fine, take the system apart, rebuild it.

Just show me some evidence first.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[GoneFishin]

150. Bullshit. What do you think retroactive immunity for the telecoms was all about. LEGAL COVER.

Legal cover.

If something is wrong, writing a special law to "say" it is "legal" is all about legal cover.

Call it something else, like stacking the deck, putting your thumb on the scale, or rigging the game.

Technically, it becomes legal. Big deal. If every criminal could write a new law saying his actions were "legal" then what good is the law?

[backwoodsbob]

70. I hope you enjoy giving this power to the president

when a repuke eventually gets there.I hope you enjoy giving this power to a repuke prez

[randome]

80. What 'power' are you talking about?

The power to gather phone metadata in one place? As treestar has pointed out, the courts have upheld the collection of third-party records for a long, long time.

Or do you mean 'spying on all Americans'? If you want me to believe that is happening, you need to show me evidence. Is that too much to ask?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

131. What law permits spying on the American people?

[randome]

137. Show me that the NSA is doing that.

You'll probably bring up the metadata again, which is not your property but that of the telecom companies.

You don't like that, change the law. But don't say the NSA is breaking the law when the law says they can obtain this data.

If you refer to any other type of spying, please give us evidence that it is being conducted by the NSA.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

97. For the umpteenth time, it's not just metadata, and you know it.

I'm so sick of stating this FACT. You think that if you can repeat this lie often enough people will believe it?

Well, I guess you do.

[randome]

100. How do you know it's more than metadata?

Because Snowden told you what to think?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

103. Do you read ANYTHING on this topic, Randome, or do you just blather on?

You're asking for shit that has been posted here time and time again. Go forth, Randome, educate thyself.

[DontTreadOnMe]

134. Your hair on fire paranoia is showing

So tired of DUers that "just know we are all being spied on"... they are so easily distracted.

I think YOU are the one who needs to be educated, and realize you are being played by the Conservative 1%ers who want you to rise up against the government, the post office, the President, .. rise up and be angry about everything!

You fell for it. Big Brother is watching you... every time you post of DU, they will be using it against you... run away in fear, they are coming!

[Th1onein]

144. Paranoid? I think not.

I was perfectly happy and secure in what I thought was my privacy, until Snowden blew the whistle.

Don't presume to know who or what I am simply because I post on an online forum. Your ad hominem attack lends nothing to the discussion.

[Monkie]

142. when randome says one thing in one thread, that directly contradicts what he said in another thread

while calling snowden a liar, or dishonest, untrustworthy, it is, um, strange to say the least, now i dont want to say anything hurtful to randome, because he has feelings too, but its a bit difficult when someone is not telling the truth, to not use the correct word to describe what a person is who does such a thing.
but i understand that others could then alert this post as hurting randome's feeling, and have it hidden.

Star Member randome (14,178 posts)
6. Not sure why these items would be that big a concern.

• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;
I don't understand the use of this but the 'potential' keyword likely makes it not a big deal.

• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
So if NSA, in learning of a terrorist plot connected overseas, also sees a Replied To email with the text of a sender in the U.S., they should pretend they don't see it?

• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
It may not be kosher but it has nothing to do with our attorney-client privilege.

• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
For the purposes of ceasing surveillance. This sounds downright sublime.

[Red Oak]

69. Re: Bullshit?

Bullshit?

Not so much.

Here are just a few specific examples, shown below with references, showing that Federal agencies can, do and have remotely turned on cell phones and in-car systems such as On-Star to listen into conversations. I would be glad to provide you with more.

The bottom line, technically, is this. If you have a computer-based, network-connected device such as a computer, cell phone, iPad or Android tablet, onboard car system such as the On-Star system, cable TV box, gaming console, Voip phone, etc. the NSA, FBI and other Federal agencies have the technical ability to turn them on remotely and use them, either real-time or time delayed, to gather whatever information they can about you. There is no question about whether or not this is technically possible. The issue is whether it is legal and should be allowed.

It is also within the technical capabilities of the NSA and other Federal agencies to collect all information, not just metadata, but the information content as well, and store it for a long time for future reference as needed including all voice calls and all emails, your browsing history, your viewing habits, along with a large amount of video. There is also access to normal commercial databases such as social media,credit card purchases, credit scoring information, bank records, even health records. If you would like I can take you through the math on memory allocation needed by information type (the only memory hog here is storgage of video), data storage and compression to show you why this is possible, but don't want this post any longer than it is already.

Yes, what the NSA is doing is legal. And wrong! Slavery and women not being allowed to vote used to be legal. They were also wrong.

I do not see how having all of my communications being picked up and stored without a warrant squares with the fourth amendment to our Constitution. So short and sweet, here it is for reference: 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.

So I am "secure in my papers and effects" without a warrant? I'm not feeling it.

I would be glad to see your references on why you think the NSA being able monitor all your communications and networked data, real time or time delayed, as well as collecting and storage of that information is 'bullshit".

References:

^ a b Schneier, Bruce (December 5, 2006). "Remotely Eavesdropping on Cell Phone Microphones"

. Schneier On Security. Retrieved 13 December 2009.
^ a b McCullagh, Declan; Anne Broache (December 1, 2006). "FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool"

. CNet News. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
^ a b Odell, Mark (August 1, 2005). "Use of mobile helped police keep tabs on suspect"

. Financial Times. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
^ a b "Telephones"

. Western Regional Security Office (NOAA official site). 2001. Retrieved 2009-03-22.
^ a b "Can You Hear Me Now?"

. ABC News: The Blotter. Retrieved 13 December 2009.
^ Lewis Page (2007-06-26). "'Cell hack geek stalks pretty blonde shocker'"

. The Register. Retrieved 2010-05-01.

^ FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool.

, CNET News.com, 1 December 2006
^ Court Leaves the Door Open for Safety System Wiretaps

, The New York Times, 21 December 2003

[Life Long Dem]

98. I could steal a pencil from the office and use that as evidence I stole something,

but the pencil wouldn't amount to whistleblowing. Same as the documents Snowden stole. In Snowden's case the documents are all legal. Same as having pencils in the office are legal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. If you stole heroin from the office it would be proof your boss deals heroin.

[Life Long Dem]

107. Also illegal

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. Then they should share a cell.

[Th1onein]

92. This is hilarious! You've got to be kidding!

They are admitting it! They HAVE admitted it! Are you kidding?

[randome]

96. What is 'it'?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

99. Can you say obsfucate?

This is getting ridiculous.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

167. He's deeply invested in never "getting it".

I quit responding to his posts, for the most part, when I started to see that no matter what is revealed about spying as time goes on, he will make adjustments that permit the President to remain blameless while simultaneously making Snowden look like a villain. That poster has hard-set limitations, and I don't believe he'll allow himself to think in cycles that run counter to his preconceived notions.

[Th1onein]

115. HEY RANDOME! Here is the info you need to educate yourself!

Go for it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3068154

[randome]

120. Every bit of that is supposition and innuendo.

Especially the part about storing data at the Utah facility that is in the process of being built.

And the automatic assumption that Prism collects all data from everywhere, supported without evidence and very clearly refuted in one of the posts on that thread.

The NSA is overseen by all three branches of our government. If that's not good enough for you, I have no problem changing it.

But these are all hair-on-fire claims without a shred of evidence to back them up.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

145. Yeah, that Utah facility is probably just a big, BIG fitness center.

I'm sorry, Randome, hate to disappoint, but every one of these claims has evidence behind it. Simply because you choose to deny it doesn't make it not so.

[randome]

146. It's still in the process of being built is my point.

How are they downloading everything into a facility that isn't complete? Or maybe they're storing everything on flash drives in the meantime.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

148. Wow, not a good arguement at ALL.

Ever bought a bigger house than the one you were currently living in, Graham? Or a new and bigger computer? Think now, very, very carefully.....is the answer to your question dawning on you yet?

Come on! I know you can do it!

Hint: When you buy a new and bigger house, you don't necessarily live on the street; you just live in a smaller house.

Good grief.

[PSPS]

24. It's a waste of time.

The standard form of excuses used by the apologists is well worn, but sometimes gets embellished.

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist

And I'll a couple of new ones in honor of this thread:

12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this

[GoneFishin]

43. You forgot Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data,

Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data,
Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data,
Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data,
Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data, Meta Data.

IT IS ONLY META DATA !!!!!!

[tblue]

55. You believe that why?

You are very trusting. Why?

[GoneFishin]

149. You misunderstood the tone of my post. It is in the context of a list of tired and worn excuses.

And may I add another to the list,

"You can't stop it, so why bother trying".

[SlimJimmy]

66. I think that about covers it. I've been accused of being at least two of those as I

railed against this invasion of our first and fourth amendment rights.

[Th1onein]

105. There's a new one out now: Rand Paul supporters put this scandal out there.

It's getting beyond ridiculous now.

[think]

9. There certainly is

whistle blowers just get abused, accused, arrested, but not charged all while watching their lives be destroyed and being completely ignored.

leakers get tortured, incarcerated, hated, and vilified for putting factual documents out in the public domain, which in some cases, could be used as physical evidence in legal matters where they previously couldn't be because the documents were classified.

So yes, there are huge differences....

3 NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower: We told you so
Peter Eisler and Susan Page, USA TODAY 8:01 p.m. EDT June 16, 2013

~Snip~

For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. ...

~Snip~

Q: So Snowden did the right thing?

Binney: Yes, I think he did.

Q: You three wouldn't criticize him for going public from the start?

J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct.

Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making.

Wiebe: We failed, yes. .....

Full article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[randome]

13. Bringing up Bush Era abuses does not support Snowden's ridiculous claims.

In case no one remembers, it was under Obama's administration that the Patriot Act was revised to stop Bush's abuses.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

15. Snowden's ridiculous claims?

Everyone one of the 3 other NSA whistle blowers corroborate Snowden's claims. Are you conveniently ignoring this?



I just post that whistle blowers get ignored and you instantly do just that.....

[randome]

17. And yet no one can furnish evidence of this. It's all just manufactured crisis crap.

It doesn't even need to be proof for me, just a little evidence would be nice.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ohheckyeah]

153. So, their testimony means nothing?

And if they had evidence, it would be stolen evidence, which you would want to prosecute them for.

[think]

20. The Patriot Act revisions indirectly made legal what was illegal under Bush

so please spare me the parsing of words.

The NSA spied on Americans and all the spin in the world, all the unconstitutional changes to the UNpatriot act, and all the lies of the politicians, govt spooks, & corporate hacks can't bury the truth....

The NSA’s Rules for Accidentally Spying on You: Report
By Lee Ferran Jun 20, 2013 6:23pm

New secret documents published online today lay out the ground rules for the shadowy National Security Agency when it comes to “inadvertently” spying on Americans, showing the U.S. government can use information it accidentally collects about its own citizens without a warrant....

Full article:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/the-nsas-rules-for-accidentally-spying-on-you-report/

[randome]

25. You are seeing what you want to see.

In legalese, those regulations are fine-tuned to draw a fine line between access to deal with a possible danger and protect rights.

Every single law has regulations much like this. It's a complex maze of words and procedures.

In fact, on the other thread about this, several posters asked if the NSA leaked this info about regulations because it actually makes it look as if they take seriously the idea that they don't want to infringe on people's rights.

It's getting to be ridiculous when some say "The NSA is breaking the law! And here's the law that permits them to do that!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. How do you use the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act for a solely domestic operation?

[randome]

30. You don't. Where is the evidence that the NSA does that?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Now you're just playing ridiculous games.

[randome]

41. Right. Asking for evidence is 'ridiculous'.

I will gladly march for Obama's head on a pike if someone can show me evidence that he is spying on all of America.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. No, you won't but that's OK because I don't have expectations of you.

You're ridiculous because the spying is what the story is about. And you know that.

In one post you will deny it's spying but then in another post you claim they got a warrant and followed the law according to the laws that involve spying. If you're Not-Spying you don't need to invoke laws that govern spying. If you're Not-Spying on people you don't need a warrant.

You also like to claim MD is harmless and not invasive. If it was harmless and not invasive it would also be useless. But apparently the NSA thinks it is useful for finding people, presumably people who don't want to be found and are actively working to not be found.

You claim Clapper didn't lie. Didn't lie about a program you claim doesn't exist. He didn't lie about a non-existent program that is supposedly OK because if it did exist it would be lawful. He didn't lie about a non-existent program that is lawful and supposedly received a warrant. He didn't lie about a non-existent program that followed the law and got a warrant it didn't need to collect harmless meta-data. He didn't lie about a non-existent program that supposedly followed the law and got a warrant it didn't need to collect harmless meta-data which is good because if he didn't lie about a non-existent program that supposedly followed the law and got a warrant it didn't need to collect harmless meta-data some people might get the wrong idea about what he was really trying to do.

Your every ridiculous evasion is based on half-arguments. You argue only half the topic at hand and use the unspoken half as the escape route and as soon as you get pinned down on your omissions you run back in the other direction. It's flagrantly obvious and tedious.

[randome]

67. Show me evidence that the NSA is spying on all of America.

Is that too much to ask?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. Collecting metadata for intel purposes is spying

[randome]

76. I don't consider it to be spying. I understand your point of view but I disagree with it.

Especially when the NSA cannot even look for your number unless they have a 2nd warrant.

If NSA didn't store copies, Congress would pass a law requiring the telecoms to store it. Then getting a warrant would be a much more time-consuming process and the problem of hackers, telecom employee malfeasance, etc. would be much greater.

Having it all in once place makes the job much easier.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. "I don't consider it to be spying."

[think]

34. And some continue to ignore facts that are as plain as day

Some Americans are spied upon in violation of the constitution.

The FISA court even ruled that the NSA violated the constitution. Will you ignore this as well?

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.
—By David Corn
| Fri Jun. 7, 2013 12:22 PM PDT

~Snip~

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper.

He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program....

Full article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

The hand writing is pretty clear....

[randome]

39. "...sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law..." isn't that melodramatic where I come from.

Sounds like a few more regulations might be needed to clarify the NSA's responsibilities. It still is nothing, nothing like Snowden alleged and there is no evidence to support his ridiculous claims.

I have no problem whatsoever with pushing for more transparency and less secrecy with the NSA. None.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

47. What are the "ridiculous" claims of Snowden that you keep refering to?

Seriously.

And on the other note. Tacitly dismissing the NSA violations of the law as ruled by the FISA court because of this wording is disingenuous in regards to your argument that the laws aren't being violated. Clearly the laws were violated as the court has ruled.

Wyden had to get permission to tell us that quick blip and it probably was not easy for him to do that. Why should a US Senator need permission to tell us that a FISA court ruled that the NSA is breaking the law?

[randome]

51. It's how the system works. Agencies are called to account all the time.

Law enforcement agencies probably get pulled back by the courts every single day in this country. None of that supports the idea that the NSA is spying on all of America. None.

I already spelled out Snowden's ridiculous claims.

He says the NSA can watch our thoughts form as we type.

He said the NSA is basically downloading the Internet on a daily basis.

He said the NSA has 'direct access' to all the world's Internet providers when all those companies say that it's bullshit.

His resume is a lie.

Take Snowden out of the equation and we are left with making the NSA more transparent and less secretive. I think 99% of the people in this country would be in favor of that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

101. By "fine line," I assume you're talking about that toss of a coin + 1%, right?

Once again, ridiculous, randome. Ridiculous.

[randome]

106. If an analyst is looking at an email that suggests something illegal...

...say, planned terrorist activity, human trafficking, international child abuse, etc., and that analyst is not positive that the sender is outside the U.S. but they are leaning in that direction, then yes, I would want the analyst to make the assumption that is more likely to prevent a crime from occurring.

What would you like to happen? If there is no definite proof that the person engaging in child abuse is off-shore, we should simply forget about it, do I have that right?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

110. I've seen the same documents you have, Randome. You're obsfucating again.

They are pulling EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING, you get that? And, THEN, they are "minimizing" it, to the point where they get to the coin toss +1 point before they let DON'T save it. And, if it's encrypted, it doesn't matter WHERE it comes from, they keep it. Period. That's not a fine line, if you ask me.

And DON'T try to disparage my patiotism, or my concern for my fellow Americans, to make your argument.

[randome]

112. Why do you keep saying they are pulling everything? There is no evidence of that.

Without evidence, it seems to me you are merely reacting to Snowden's desire to make everyone afraid.

So pretend that I am the unenlightened fool you take me for and provide me with a smidgen of evidence that the NSA is 'pulling everything'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Th1onein]

147. BECAUSE THEY ARE PULLING EVERYTHING.

And, please, Randome, I'm not going to waste my time sending you all of the links that you already apparently have, but choose not to believe the content therein.

You CHOOSE not to believe someone who was in a position to know, who gave up EVERYTHING to inform the American people. You CHOOSE to believe the very people who have lied to you again and again, and whose job is to lie to you, and who have ADMITTED that they have lied to you, and to Congress, and to all of America.

It's amazing, Randome, but it's got to be a choice on your part, because logically, it surely can't be based on the evidence that is out there.

[A Simple Game]

62. So according to you, under President Obama

Bush's abuses were made legal. And this fact satisfies you?

It's OK now, the abuses are legal!!! Naivete to the extreme.

[randome]

64. What 'fact'? You haven't provided any.

The only thing I am sure of now is that Snowden is full of shit. His resume is a lie and he's shown no evidence of his wild claims.

If he or anyone else wants to show me evidence that Obama has subverted the Patriot Act and is 'spying on all Americans', I will be happy to consider it.

But yes, the problems with the Patriot Act were supposedly 'fixed' with its last revisions. Again, anyone, show me evidence to the contrary.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DJ13]

119. he's shown no evidence of his wild claims.

His "wild claims" were enough to be charged with espionage.

If his claims were as bogus as you think the government has no business charging him.

[randome]

121. You steal from your employer, you go to jail. It's that simple.

What do you think they should do? Give him a raise?

Hell, even his resume was fake! http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698

Clearly the NSA has work to do in letting contractors gain access to confidential internal documents. But I don't think that was what Snowden was hoping for.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[A Simple Game]

123. Perhaps I don't understand, what if anything has changed from Bush to President Obama

as far as the NSA is concerned?

[randome]

127. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008

Sorry for the formatting.

Specifically, the Act:[19]

Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]
Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]
Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]
Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.[22]
Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[A Simple Game]

130. You misunderstood my question, what changed from Bush to President Obama?

any act of 2008 would be under Bush. I want to know why you think things are different under President Obama.

[randome]

135. I mistakenly believed Obama had a hand in that. But he did have a hand in this.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R42725.pdf

And still none of this supports the idea that the NSA is downloading everything. I believe the ACLU has a court case pending regarding the 2nd paragraph below.

Title VII of FISA, as added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, created new separate procedures for targeting non-U.S. persons and U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. While some provisions of Title VII could be characterized as relaxing FISA’s traditional standards for electronic surveillance and access to stored communications, other provisions of Title VII have expanded FISA’s scope to require judicial approval of activities, such as surveillance of U.S. persons on foreign soil, that were previously unregulated by the statute.

Upon enactment of Title VII, a number of organizations brought suit challenging newly enacted procedures for surveillance of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be abroad. The suit alleged that this authority violated the targets’ Fourth Amendment rights, because it permitted acquisition of international communications without requiring an individualized court order supported by probable cause. However, on February 26, 2013, in Clapper v. Amnesty International, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs had not suffered a sufficiently concrete injury to have legal standing to challenge Title VII. Therefore, the
Court did not decide the merits of the Fourth Amendment question.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

58. Only to those in power.

[randome]

60. In case you haven't been paying attention for the past hundred years or so...

...our entire legal framework depends on the precise meaning of words.

Obama greatly expanded and enhanced the whistleblower protections.

He has prosecuted more leakers than previous administrations because...there are more leakers!

His National Declassification Center will issue a report in Dec. of this year.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

113. Obama is in power, it is on his terms and definitions that he goes after "leakers"

and protects "whistle-blowers." Those in power get to make the distinction. And them alone. The words have the meaning that those with power choose to enforce.

[ReRe]

72. Do you actually know the difference? n/t

[randome]

79. I don't know the precise legal terms myself but I know they have very different legal meanings.

We would not need laws such as the Whistleblower Protection Act if there was no difference.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ReRe]

88. OK...

Here's the simple difference in a nutshell: A whistle blower goes the established route, through the government. There's a law that governs all that has to be done. A leaker, on the other hand, is someone that doesn't go the legal whistle blowing route...they go "rogue".

Now, the reason I think Snowden went rogue is why? I think he went rogue because the last whistle blower who did go the legal route was PUNISHED by PO administration! He was thrown in prison with a bunch of charges hanging over his head. The whistle blower did everything right and was punished for it. His name was Thomas Drake. (first name might be wrong, sorry.)

[randome]

89. Drake also stole documents and I believe that was the only charge that stuck, wasn't it?

You don't think Snowden could have gone to Bernie Sanders or the Inspector General?

Snowden's resume is a lie so everything he says needs to be viewed with suspicion. If you want to hang your hat on what he says -without evidence- you will lose your hat.

If anyone wants to show me evidence that the NSA is spying on everybody, I will gladly look at it.

That's all I'm asking for.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ReRe]

117. Whatever.

Adios.

[Bonobo]

154. "Legal meanings"

But it is whistle blowing in the spirit in which the word was created,

In every meaningful sense that the term was meant for, it is whistle blowing.

[railsback]

3. Well, actually we're in a time when social networks

seem to leak information on millions of clients to the populous every other month. A time when hackers gleefully raid 'secure servers', ripping off bank accounts and social security numbers, subjecting millions to fraud every year.

But that's not the kind of invasion of privacy and 'loss of freedom' we'll be talking about years later, because apparently that's all cool - its not the big bad government. No, we'll be talking about the NSA, who may or may not have a phone call logged from you somewhere, because THAT was the end of 'freedom'.

[Thinkingabout]

5. K & R Wonderful report, also the freedom to move about the country and our home streets might be a

big problem and then we might be able to remember our freedoms.

[Turbineguy]

4. These were powers given to Bush

by republicans with their usual shortsightedness.

[Thinkingabout]

8. I did not like the wiretapping without a warrant or even when the excuse we don't have time to

wait on FISA court. If reality would really set in on those complaining there are too many conversations happening to listen to all conversations. In trying to find those who are trying to harm us will never afford the personnel to listen to all conversations. The data on phone call records does not provide the voice data. I know there are crooked people in a lot of places and abuses occur such as the abuse Snowden has committed.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

38. You cannot deny -

it was with the help of a whole lotta "Democrats" -- the kind we don't need in office any more.

[mazzarro]

6. +100%

[treestar]

7. The courts will decide

if duly passed laws are against the constitution or not.

It's not about Obama - except on DU you will find posts that seem to blame it all on him - some people blame the current President, they will just change the name to the next President's name when the time comes.

There are tons of accusations that they voted for Obama and expected him not to do these things - apparently they voted for him for something other than the Presidency of the US.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Do you think this will be overturned by courts, those judges know the Constitution and will see the

word "warrant" in the Fourth Amendment and will declare it constitutional.

[treestar]

18. They courts upheld the FISA

No, it's more complex than that, but they might find it unconstitutional. They might now. That will be briefed on both sides.

[Thinkingabout]

109. I might win the lottery even though I hardly buy a ticket.

[treestar]

122. What has that got to do with it?

How should laws, duly passed, be determined constitutional or not? What alternatives to the present system which are allegedly better are to be provided?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. These same courts abused the FOREIGN Intel Surveillance Act and the 4A

to grant non-specific search and seizure power against strictly domestic communications?

There are tons of accusations that they voted for *Bush* and expected him not to do these things - apparently they voted for him for something other than the Presidency of the US.

All hail, Bush!

[treestar]

19. Look if you can't trust the US system of government at all

You are still entitled to live here and grouse all day.

Probably not going to find a better one in a country that will take you, but then, I doubt you'd find that country's system satisfactory in the long run.

As whoever said, it's the best of all possible bad system. But if you are determined to feel abused, go right ahead.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. It will become the worst of the worst if you insist on sad arguments like that.

Need we really trot out Lord Acton, Edmund Burke and Martin Niemoller?

[treestar]

32. What do you intend to do about it?

We can't trust elected officials, or the courts. So I don't see what's to be done here. What do you suggest?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. We should accept our fate like good little subjects.

We should do as we're told. We should go to work when we're supposed to. We should eat what is provided. We should read what is printed. They will give us our vacations. They will send us our meals. They will keep us healthy and safe. They only mean the best for us. What proper thinking person could disagree. Freedom, independence and liberty are just euphemisms for distrust, sedition and treason.

After all, if the legislature passes a law and the courts uphold the law and the executive enforces the law then the people just need to learn to accept THE LAW.





Why do troublemakers always have to go around making trouble?

[treestar]

61. So we can't do anything?

What should we do to get out of this terrible dictatorship of THE LAW?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. But you don't want anything done.

You approve of what is happening.

[treestar]

86. Don't put it on me

You want another system. You said THE LAW is no good. What is a better system and how do we get it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. I don't want another system.

I want those responsible brought to heel to the system we're SUPPOSED to have but I'm being told I have to accept the system as it currently is. They 4th A only loses its power if they are allowed to violate it with impunity. Our system was designed to forbid general search warrants but the Loyalists and the apologists tell us to accept that very thing in the name of defending the system.

[treestar]

124. The courts decide whether it is constitutional or not

If they decide it's constitutional, then it is accepted. Why is that a negative thing? If the LAW declares it to be OK within the constitution, why are you calling people "apologists" for suggesting you abide by the rule of law? If you don't want another system, what is wrong with defending the one we have?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

126. Because that isn't the system we have.

The wording of the 4th Amendment is not ambiguous. The violation of that wording is plain to see.

[treestar]

129. The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment

has gone way beyond that.

The system is still functioning.

[ohheckyeah]

155. Ultimately the citizens of this

country decide what is constitutional.

[Progressive dog]

63. Didn't a few of your trotters live under a monarchy

with an aristocracy? I'll bet most of them didn't have aircraft or anything like that. Please trot them out, as something other than a name.

[HardTimes99]

160. Don't forget Santayana - nt

[randome]

27. So...the system works?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. No, the system did not work

If the system work the executive branch would not feel emboldened enough to use a law whose words and intent are targeted for foreign threats to abuse it for wholesale spying on Americans inside America.

If the system work no judge would have blessed off on the warrant.

If the system worked Clapper would not have illegally lied to Sen. Wyden's face.

The only way for the system to redeem itself is to send enough people to jail to strike the fear of God and the citizenry into the hearts of those who might dare contemplate such things in the future.

[treestar]

33. So the system is to send to jail people you believe have done wrong?

That should be the system?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. It's better than your system where the law and the Constitution are ignored to spy on everyone.

[treestar]

48. the law and the Constitution are ignored?

Then why do people leave office when they are not re-elected? Why are there any courts - there are millions of them functioning every day, federal and state. Why do the states remain? Why do federal agencies continue to function? How is it there are elections when the Constitution says there should be? How is it that people are not arrested for criticizing the government? Why is it they can publicly say anything? Sarah Palin goes about her business day to day. The Constitution has to be functioning, or she'd be in jail.

Why does the President not close Gitmo? He wants to. Yet he seems to respect the separation of powers, imagine that. He doesn't do whatever he wants, but stays in the parameters of his power.

It would be better for us to defer to your judgment rather than our collective judgment as it plays out in our three branches, state v. federal and our elections? Why should I trust you over the government that has been functioning for about 230 years?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Please cite the probable cause for the NSA program.

[treestar]

59. Non responsive

I would rather the courts decide than you decide. Why is that unwise on my part?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. No warrant can be issued without probable cause.

What have hundreds of millions of Americans done to give the government probable cause that they could be a threat to America?

[treestar]

71. There have been a zillion cases in the courts on that very question

The FISA has been upheld and found not to be unconstitutional.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. FISA is for foreign agents

Are hundreds of millions of Americans whom you CANNOT cite probable cause now suddenly labeled foreigners?

[treestar]

84. Cite what?

Here's some cites

Post-FISA[edit]
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.
In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

This is how society lets those questions be decided. I don't decide personally.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. "Cite what?"

I said "probable cause" at least twice and yet you lie about what it is I'm asking. You obviously lack the intellectual honesty to even acknowledge the debate.

As long as you're into wiki citations --

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Writ of Assistance

...

In colonial America[edit]

General writs of assistance played an important role in the increasing tensions that led to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. In 1760, Great Britain began to enforce some of the provisions of the Navigation Acts by granting customs officers these writs. In New England, smuggling had become common. However, officers could not search a person's property without giving a reason. Colonists protested that the writs violated their rights as British subjects. The colonists had several problems with these writs. They were permanent and even transferable: the holder of a writ could assign it to another. Any place could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. This put anyone who had such a writ above the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

Your Loyalist credentials are beyond reproach.

[treestar]

125. I cited cases that have to do with spying

and whether it is constitutional.

Your cite is way more general. Those cases were specific.

Probable cause doesn't even come into it - that applies to criminal cases and there is tons of case law on it.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro01.htm

[Nuclear Unicorn]

128. Good evidence for my contention

C “Papers and Effects”

“Papers” encompass personal items, such as letters and diaries, as well as impersonal business records. “Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect.

B “False Friends” Doctrine

The Fourth Amendment protects private conversations where no party consents to the surveillance and/or recording but does not protect conversations where one party consents to such activity. Thus, under the doctrine of “false friends,” no search occurs if a police informant or undercover agent masquerading as the defendant's friend, business associate, or colleague in crime, reports to the government the defendant's statements made in the informant's or agent's presence. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971). A person is not deemed to have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality from a person with whom he is conversing.

§ 1.06 Probable Cause

[A] Scope of “Probable Cause” Requirement

Probable cause is required as the basis for:

(1) arrest and search warrants; and

(2) all arrests (regardless of whether an arrest warrant is required)

Not all searches and seizures need be founded on probable cause. A lesser standard – “reasonable suspicion” – may apply where the intrusion is minor, such as a pat-down for weapons. Furthermore, where the intrusion on a person's privacy is especially slight and society's interest in conducting the search or seizure is significant, there may be no need for individualized suspicion, such as for society and border checkpoints and certain administrative searches.


B “Probable Cause” Defined

“Probable cause” exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer's personal knowledge, and about which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a “person of reasonable caution” to believe that:

(1) in the case of an arrest, an offense has been committed and the person to be arrested committed it.

(2) in the case of a search, an item described with particularity will be found in the place to be searched.

Probable cause is an objective concept. An officer's subjective belief, no matter how sincere, does not in itself constitute probable cause. However, in determining what a “person of reasonable caution” would believe, a court will take into account the specific experiences and expertise of the officer whose actions are under scrutiny.

[C] Basis for “Probable Cause”

Probable cause may be founded on:

(1) direct information, i.e., information the officer secured by personal observation; and

(2) hearsay information.

No weight may be given to unsupported conclusory statements in probable cause determinations.

[randome]

35. There is no evidence of 'wholesale spying on Americans inside America'. None.

Checks and balances, Nuclear Unicorn. Checks and balances. Laws and procedures get overturned all the time in all areas of our legal system.

Clapper was forbidden to talk about the information he was asked about in a public hearing. He tried to fudge his answer and failed. It isn't heard to see him in a Catch-22 position, forbidden from answering that question in public and then asked about it in public.

As for sending people to jail, I'm right behind you on that. But first you need evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Clapper lied. He had time to prepare an answer and he had time to privately amend his answer

Sen Wyden said as much but Clapper maintained his lie. Sen. Wyden sits on the Intel Committee which is set up to provide the checks and balances you pretend to believe in while still allowing for proper secrecy for legitimate national security concerns.

Clapper had plenty of opportunity to not lie about the program you claim was done according to the law even though the law and the Constitution are designed to forbid these very things.

[randome]

46. 'Prepare an answer'? What could he possibly have said?

Anything that wasn't the truth would be...a lie! If he refused to answer the question, that would have been the same as saying 'Yes' because everyone would assume the worst.

Hell, if you're going to put Clapper through the ringer for lying about something he was forbidden to talk about, then you must really despise Snowden since his resume appears to be mostly lies and he 'conveniently' can't show us evidence of his claims.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. You're being ridiculous again.

As if no government official ever before duly informed the intel committee of sensitive programs or operations without resorting to lying.

And again you contradict yourself. If it's just MD which nobody cares about and it belongs to the carriers, not the people then he wouldn't need to lie in public or private.

[randome]

56. Maybe he was afraid that some would blow it out of proportion. If so, he called that right.

I thought this was a public hearing, not an intelligence committee meeting.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. Why settle for ridiculous when you can shoot for fanciful?

[Monkie]

143. when randome says one thing in one thread, that directly contradicts what he said in another thread

while calling snowden a liar, or dishonest, untrustworthy, it is, um, strange to say the least, now i dont want to say anything hurtful to randome, because he has feelings too, but its a bit difficult when someone is not telling the truth, to not use the correct word to describe what a person is who does such a thing.
but i understand that others could then alert this post as hurting randome's feeling, and have it hidden.

but i would like to tell you that trying to have a rational conversation with randome is a waste of your time, which is more precious than this i imagine

Star Member randome (14,178 posts)
6. Not sure why these items would be that big a concern.

• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;
I don't understand the use of this but the 'potential' keyword likely makes it not a big deal.

• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
So if NSA, in learning of a terrorist plot connected overseas, also sees a Replied To email with the text of a sender in the U.S., they should pretend they don't see it?

• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
It may not be kosher but it has nothing to do with our attorney-client privilege.

• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
For the purposes of ceasing surveillance. This sounds downright sublime.

[SlimJimmy]

77. He lied. Let's call it what it was. He could have answered the question by saying

he couldn't answer in open session. People could presume what they wanted from that answer, but as *you* say, that's not evidence. *That* would have been the truthful answer. He chose to answer otherwise.

He tried to fudge his answer and failed.

[randome]

83. Yes, he lied about something he was sworn to keep secret.

But then you're overlooking the fact that he reversed himself later, thereby telling the truth.

Still doesn't show that the NSA is spying on all Americans, does it? I will believe in anything if someone shows me evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. Let me guess.

Your real name is G. Gordon Liddy. Whatever are you doing on DU, you little scamp?

[SlimJimmy]

114. There have been at least three other whistle blowers that have verified what he said. Getting

secret documents out of the NSA is difficult, and criminal. What exactly should they have done? Other than Snowden, they used the proper channels. The fact that the NSA and some in Congress buried the bodies does not mean they are lying.

It seems to me that you are only taking into account facts you like. For example, the courts have said that the NSA program violated fourth amendment protections. Three other whistle blowers have verified what Snowden alleges, and now we know (fact) that AG Holder signed an affidavit seeking a *general* warrant. A clear violation of the Constitution.

[randome]

118. The only 'secret document' that has shown anything is the warrant about phone metadata.

The world's reaction to this has pretty much been ho hum. Except here at DU where some are only too eager to see everything in terms of 'evil Obama'.

But it was -and is- a legal warrant.

And no, you do not get to steal documents then claim to be a whistleblower. Drake was one of those Bush Era trio you mentioned. His charges were finally dropped except for the one about stealing documents.

Whistleblower procedures are very clearly laid out. You can go to any member of Congress or the Inspector General and outline your case.

It is starting to look very likely that Snowden knew his resume was getting seen as the fake it was and so he made the decision to get as many documents as he could and leave the country.

Yes, the courts found the NSA had overstepped their authority in one case. That's how the system works. Are you saying on the basis of this, Snowden was justified in stealing documents and leaving the country?

You have a problem with the courts narrowing the NSA's reach?

The 'general warrant' has not been found to be unconstitutional, has it? It relates to phone metadata which is composed of records that are not your 'personal belongings' so the 4th Amendment does not apply.

No one has supported Snowden's ludicrous claims with a smidgen of evidence. The NSA is watching our thoughts form as we type. They are downloading the Internet on a daily basis. They have 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers, all of which say that claim is bullshit.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SlimJimmy]

132. That's an extremely parsed view.

The general warrant has in fact been found to be unconstitutional. A specific warrant, based on probable cause, was included in the Bill of Rights as a measure directed against such warrants. The fact that the AG actually signed an affidavit requesting one is prima facie evidence of a Constitutional violation.

Accessing text messages, e-mail, internet searches, and drone surveillance have also been occurring, according to admissions by the NSA. Sure, it was *accidental* and it wont happen again ... sure.

The 'general warrant' has not been found to be unconstitutional, has it? It relates to phone metadata which is composed of records that are not your 'personal belongings' so the 4th Amendment does not apply.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[randome]

136. Metadata is not your 'papers'. They belong to the telecom companies.

It has been that way for a long, long time. So the 4th Amendment does not apply.

I can see the argument about why a warrant was needed in the first place. I don't know why they went this way. But the metadata records are not your 'papers' or 'personal effects'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SlimJimmy]

138. They *needed* the warrant because the meta data does touch on the fourth amendment

when the contents are opened. And we know from the NSA itself that some contents were opened. Clearly, the government knew this and was covering its backside in advance of something they were intending to do. The problem is that it was not a specific warrant, as required by the Constitution, but a general warrant covering literally hundreds of millions of people.

I know you are pinning your argument on the fact that the court has ruled that this data is not owned by individuals, but as I have explained above, it went well beyond simply collecting and storing the data. In addition, I have not yet seen your argument for the collection of texts, e-mails, and drone surveillance. I'd be interested in your take on that.

This is a good discussion, and I appreciate you keeping it civil.

[randome]

139. We don't know that texts & emails are being collected.

I'm not going to deny that they are because none of us really knows. But I've seen no evidence that they are and Snowden certainly hasn't provided any.

I'm sure the NSA gets plenty of data under a legal warrant and some of that includes correspondence not directly related to the suspect. But that happens all the time in any investigation and it's probably more likely to happen today with the ocean of data on the Internet that often gives no clue as to where it originated.

Drone surveillance is definitely useful under certain circumstances. If we need to have laws and regulations that forbid their use except under specific circumstances, I have no problem with that. And with all the security cameras in larger cities, drones wouldn't really add much.

My biggest worry about indiscriminate use of drones is what happens when one malfunctions, falls to the ground, injures someone, causes an accident? Too many flying devices without a specific purpose and an accident is bound to occur.

And same to you for the civility!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SlimJimmy]

165. Sorry for the delay in responding. We were out to dinner last night with friends.

No real argument with your logic, I'm just concerned that other sources have said that the NSA (when they were working there) *did* look at the content of text messages, e-mail, and internet searches. My main concern with the use of drones is the real time data they can obtain. Who collects and stores that data? I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about that.

[bornskeptic]

141. Why do you keep saying strictly domestic communications?

Domestic phone carriers have records of calls to or from numbers outside the US. By law the NSA can only search their database for numbers beonging to non-US persons outside the US. The NSA is forbidden to conduct domestic surveillance, but storing business records is not surveillance. Of course you are free to believe that they are perpetually violating the law, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. A-FUCKIN'-MEN!

Why the heck make it that much easier for the next Evil Fuck or Incompetent Boob in office to fuck over the American people. We need to rip that power back from the Presidenct AND Congress.

[MotherPetrie]

45. K&R Also about the guy BEFORE Obama - and if that walking-around-free-thanks-to-Obama war criminal

Was still in office, there would be none of this hair-splitting over FISA in a failed effort to cover HIS ass.

[Iggo]

49. So it's about the guy before Obama...

...and the guy after Obama, and the guy after him, and the guy after him ad infinitum...

But it's not about Obama.

[GoneFishin]

50. Good OP. .... Same regurgitated excuses. Anybody buy this stuff anymore?

[ReRe]

78. Absolutely!

K&R

That's right. Just imagine a GD Republican leftover from the GWB administration (perhaps Cheney himself, since it looks like he's going to live for effing ever) comes along and gets in there after one of their famous rigged elections. We REALLY will be toast then. This is not a movie, folks. This is reality.

[dawg]

81. + 1,000,000

I am stunned that so many of us cannot see the danger.

[forestpath]

87. + 1,000,001

[RC]

116. Make that 1,000,002

I'm thinking we have some volunteer and even some paid operatives around here.

[siligut]

91. Very few people realized the momentum behind the events of today

We cannot blame Obama or any other hopeful idealist for what they failed to prevent. Maybe this is how Oppenheimer felt when he appealed to his fellow scientists to question the progress on Fat Man and Little Boy. Unfortunately, forethought is not a priority for those who believe the future is already laid out.

I could rec this if you hadn't added the second paragraph.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. "I could rec this if you hadn't added the second paragraph."

It is my recognizing the fact that Obama is essentially a decent man. No one blames a man with a starving family for stealing a loaf of bread. Obama IS a better man than Bush. Obama IS the person an idealistic young college girl cast her first ever vote for in 2008. Obama IS a person with principles and a genuine concern seldom seen in politics.

But that's what makes the hurt and disappointment so much more acute.

For all we know he genuinely believes he is doing the best thing. I actually believe he does. But that doesn't matter because the evil that will come from this staggers the imagination.

[siligut]

111. Maybe it is his idealism that believes it can be tamed

Obama is decent, disciplined, intelligent, cultured and has true concern for his fellow man. Would you be disappointed in a flower for wilting in the sun? Does the house torn apart by a tornado disappoint you?

Technology has outpaced our ability to contain it. We just don't have the skills, though I believe we can obtain them. But we have to face reality and then do the work.

[pnwmom]

95. We're deluding ourselves if we think we can stop this once and for all.

Whatever we do about Obama, as long as we have the technology, it will be simple enough for any future President, with the backing of Congress, to use it again -- especially in the aftermath of another 9-11.

[dawg]

151. We need to make it the political kiss of death for a Democrat to support this.

The Republicans, other than a few libertarian-leaning types. are a lost cause.

But if we show our Democrats that we are okay with this sort of thing when they are in power, we may never get our privacy rights back again.

[pnwmom]

152. It would be the political kiss of death if a President

dropped these programs and a 9/11 event followed shortly thereafter that people believe could have been prevented if the program hadn't been dropped.

[dawg]

156. Well, then why stop there?

How about curfews? How about a national ID card or, even better, subdermal microchips for everyone?

Maybe we could collect every child's DNA at birth and build a national database. There is no limit. And with each step that is taken, you can't go back because "What if another 9/11 were to happen?"

They used to call this country the home of the brave. It sounds like we are turning into a bunch of cowards if you ask me. 19 guys with box cutters, and now half the country is ready to surrender its liberties in order to feel "safer".

But there is no protection. There is no safety.

You are going to die.

I am going to die.

Everyone you love is going to die.

While we are still here, let's continue to live free.

The information the NSA is compiling can easily be used to blackmail, intimidate, and silence people. It can help to create a country that you and I have never known.

Listen to our friends who have lived under repressive regimes. There are several of them right here on DU. They aren't talking about movies or television shows. They can tell you how these things worked in real life.

[pnwmom]

157. Why NOT stop there?

Collecting telephone meta-data is not equivalent to subdural microchips.

I think Obama is correct that he has to figure out a way to balance the need for safety with the need to protect civil liberties.

[dawg]

158. Meta data on all Americans is a step too far.

It can be used to blackmail, intimidate, incriminate, or silence people who have nothing to to with terrorists or terrorist plots. Just imagine what Richard Nixon could have done with access to such information. I'll bet he would have finished his second term.

I'm okay with monitoring of foreign correspondence and with monitoring of domestic correspondence of actual suspects for which an individual warrant has been obtained. Anything further is a violation of the plain meaning of the fourth amendment.

[pnwmom]

159. There was a related Supreme Court decision decades ago,

and it decided that collecting telephone meta-data wasn't in violation of the fourth amendment.

So maybe the "plain meaning" of the 4th amendment isn't so plain.

http://prospect.org/article/three-guiding-principles-nsa-reform


Yet, to even begin the discussion of reform, we have to grapple with why things got to where they are. One document published in the Guardian shows a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court order for Verizon, the telecommunications giant, to hand over phone metadata (telephone numbers, call length, and location). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the Fourth Amendment does not protect such metadata. Similarly, the PRISM data-mining program, which automates access to Internet company databases, was, misreporting aside, publicly discussed as a software platform used by the military and intelligence community for many years.

[dawg]

161. There was one that said separate but equal was okay too.

It was wrong. It got reversed.

There was also the Citizens United ruling that says unlimited campaign contributions from corporations are the same a free speech. That one is still in effect, despite being wrong.

Bush v. Gore. That was a supreme court ruling too. Wrong!

Evil will stand unless we work to defeat it. The Jim Crow laws were all "legal", at the time, too. Didn't make them right.

The meta data clearly belongs to the carriers, and should be subject to subpoena by the government in specific cases only. Blanket warrants should apply only in cases where it is the carrier itself that is being investigated, and that has clearly not the case.

Just because a court says something is currently legal does not mean it is right. Horrible things have been called legal throughout our history.

And those things did not change because people threw up their hands and said, "The court says it's legal, nothing else to see here."

No. People fought, and they got changes.

[pnwmom]

163. I didn't say we should be doing it.

I said that the "plain meaning" of the 4th amendment with regard to this practice is not clear. It is wrong to accuse Obama of doing something unconstitutional when Supreme Court precedent backs him up.

The Congress passed this law, now it's up to them to change it.

[dawg]

164. Wrong is wrong.

No matter what the court currently says.

It was wrong when the governors of my state kept our schools segregated, and for many years the courts, including the Supreme Court, backed them up.

It was right to accuse those governors of wrongdoing. And it *was* unconstitutional, despite what the courts said at the time, because it clearly violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Courts can be wrong. And we have to stand up for what is right. Even if it means standing up to our own leaders.

Especially if it means standing up to our own leaders.

Nothing ever changes otherwise.

[Yavin4]

140. THANK YOU!!!! YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!!!!

If you're using the issue to attack Obama, then you are not being honest.

[Initech]

162. The obstructionists got away with fucking murder under Bush. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Now that Obama isn't allowing that to happen under his watch, they're framing him for the crimes they got away with under Bush. And they'll frame the next president, and the one after that, and the one after that.

[Zorra]

166. Reality. Great post. nt