Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Want proof that NSA snooping thwarts terror plots? Stand by, Senator Feinstein says [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)59. Except you're wrong about that, as you know.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/justice-department-prism_n_3405101.html
WASHINGTON -- Mere hours after President Barack Obama said Friday morning that he welcomes a debate on the federal government's highly classified surveillance programs, his Department of Justice tried to squash the release of a secret court opinion concerning surveillance law.
A 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling found the U.S. government had unconstitutionally overreached in its use of a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The National Security Agency uses the same section to justify its PRISM online data collection program. But that court opinion must remain secret, the Justice Department says, to avoid being "misleading to the public."
The DOJ was responding to a lawsuit filed last year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking the release of a 2011 court opinion that found the government had violated the Constitution and circumvented FISA, the law that is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance aimed at foreigners.
(snip)
The part of the FISA law addressed in the opinion in question, Section 702, is the same one the NSA is now using to scoop up email and social media records through its PRISM program.
A 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling found the U.S. government had unconstitutionally overreached in its use of a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The National Security Agency uses the same section to justify its PRISM online data collection program. But that court opinion must remain secret, the Justice Department says, to avoid being "misleading to the public."
The DOJ was responding to a lawsuit filed last year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking the release of a 2011 court opinion that found the government had violated the Constitution and circumvented FISA, the law that is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance aimed at foreigners.
(snip)
The part of the FISA law addressed in the opinion in question, Section 702, is the same one the NSA is now using to scoop up email and social media records through its PRISM program.
This is a specious argument based on the false assertion that all of this was settled when FISA was set up. That's not the case. We're now dealing with new activities under the Patriot Act and unknown "interpretations" of the various laws.
Besides the fact the PRISM law was being interpreted and used unconstitutionally through 2011, we don't know where the programs have gone from there, or what the administration is and is not telling the court, or how it's interpreting, for example, how it can use data that it "legally" collects.
No one can know for certain what's being done that is or isn't legal, or constitutional, or morally supportable, because it's all in secret.
This is the problem.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
121 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Want proof that NSA snooping thwarts terror plots? Stand by, Senator Feinstein says [View all]
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2013
OP
How come the Federal Judges on the FISA court didn't say it was unconstitutional?
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2013
#8
It's not Unconstitutional. I explained this all here with appeals court case citations
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#11
Unless you are a Constitutional Law expert, you don't have the expertise to interpret it.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#24
As your entire post is ad-hominem and devoid of facts, you are acknowledging I'm right.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#64
Article III courts are not in charge of sky color, but they are in charge of consitutionality
arely staircase
Jun 2013
#30
how many on here would agree with the courts that Citizens United is constitutional?
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#90
It has nothing to do with "authoritarian" any more than the "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater"
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#49
It's not unconstitutional. Appeals courts have ruled on this again, and again. And the SCOTUS
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#9
No, they're not, just like the fire in a crowded theater exemption to the 1st amendment isnt wrong.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#44
I figured out that you didn't care about the facts long ago. No need to point it out.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#65
Keep telling yourself folks with the facts on their side are wrong and your suppositions are right
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#70
The OP tends to ignore the fact that the FISA court already ruled that the NSA broke law
think
Jun 2013
#84
One request for a warrant among thousands apparently exceeded FISA. Your point is not made.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#103
And the SCOTUS repeatedly has denied cert. on these cases. They think the appeals courts decisions
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#14
The Supreme Court either hears or does not hear a case based on what they want to rule on
indepat
Jun 2013
#37
The SCOTUS denying cert goes back 60+ years on these issues. That's way beyond the current court.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#45
It's not unconstitutional till there is a final court ruling that it's unconstitutional.
pnwmom
Jun 2013
#13
Actually these cases have come before fed. appeals courts a lot and FISA has been upheld, AND...
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#15
You know that prosecutors are denied some percentage of warrants all the time, right?
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#104
The word "warrant" isn't even mentioned in the article. Nor any of the other articles posted
think
Jun 2013
#113
That is not an argument. Plenty of laws are upheld as well. You have no basis for your assertions.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#51
I know, you dont give a darn about the facts. You keep proving that over and over. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#68
Not really. The appeals courts rulings on this have said that as long as the target is a person or
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#22
No, no, and no. Your entire argument boils down to ignoring 60+ years of caselaw and
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#117
I think we'll get a bunch of paper with everything but the words "and" and "the" redacted.
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2013
#69
So it sounds like they're letting Snowden/Greenwald force their hand? Tsk, tsk... ;)
reformist2
Jun 2013
#6
Like a definitive list of all the pot smoking cancer grannies the patriot act has caught?
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2013
#23
She is a vile piece of shit. Senator War Profiteer. That she chairs the intelligence committee is
cali
Jun 2013
#88
You can note there is a real fear there about this information. It runs through responses to this OP
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#72
An ideology that is uncomfortable with mass snooping of noncriminal American's information?
Scootaloo
Jun 2013
#81
An ideology that depends on denial of facts & characterization of any contrary information as "lies"
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#105
If the information is to be declassified, was it improperly classified from the start?
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2013
#42
Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden call bullshit on claim metadata collection thwarted attacks
Melinda
Jun 2013
#61
Udall/Wyden say they have not seen any evidence NSA program has uniquely provided valuable intel
dkf
Jun 2013
#78
Spying upon, beating up and jailing Occupy Wall Street doesn't count. n/t
Fire Walk With Me
Jun 2013
#85
The posts on this thread disgust me. I am no longer a democrat. This democratic party is
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#92
"locking up Japanese-Americans was effective, there were no incidents of sabotage"
Spider Jerusalem
Jun 2013
#98
The outraged demanded to see proof the program has worked ... now that it looks like
JoePhilly
Jun 2013
#102