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: WSJ: The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional [View all]Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)4. Glenn Greenwald Q&A with Falguni Sheth
Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/13/qa_with_glenn_greenwald_americans_reaction_surprising_and_gratifying/Are these actions technically legal? Whats the implication that we should be walking away with? That there was just hand-in-hand cooperation, or that there was something illegal thats being done?
Well, first of all, hovering over everything is always the Fourth Amendment, regardless of what Congress says is legal. The Fourth Amendment constrains what Congress and the government are permitted to do. One of the arguments from privacy activists and the ACLU and other groups has always been that the new FISA law, which was passed in 2008 with the support of all parties in Congress including President Obama, which was designed essentially to legalize the illegal Bush-Cheney wordless eavesdropping program, is unconstitutional. And there have been all sorts of lawsuits brought to argue that this law that Congress passed is unconstitutional, and yet no court has been able to rule on the merits of it, because the Obama administration has gone into court repeatedly and said two things: Number 1: All this is too secret to allow courts to rule on, and Number 2: Because we keep everything so secret, nobody can prove that theyve been subjected to this spying, and therefore nobody has standing to contest the constitutionality of it. So theres this huge argument out there, which is that all of this is illegal because its a violation of the Constitution, that the Obama DOJ has succeeded in preventing a judicial answer to.
Secondly, under the law, the U.S. government is free to intercept the communications of anybody they believe with 51 percent probability is not a U.S. citizen and is not on U.S. soil. So theyre free to go to any of these Internet companies or just simply take off the cables and fiber-optic wires that they have access to, whatever communications they want of anybody outside the United States whos not a U.S. person, and oftentimes those people are speaking to American citizens. The NSA is free to invade those communications without having to go into a FISA court and get a specific warrant, which is why when President Obama said nobodys listening to your calls without a warrant, he was simply not telling the truth. That was completely false and deceitful, what he said, because even under the law, the NSA is allowed to intercept communications with American citizens without getting a warrant. The only time they need a warrant is when theyre specifically targeting a U.S. person, an American citizen or somebody on U.S. soil. So its a scandal in that not just that theyre violating the Constitution, but also what the law allows, because of the level of abuse that it entails.
Well, first of all, hovering over everything is always the Fourth Amendment, regardless of what Congress says is legal. The Fourth Amendment constrains what Congress and the government are permitted to do. One of the arguments from privacy activists and the ACLU and other groups has always been that the new FISA law, which was passed in 2008 with the support of all parties in Congress including President Obama, which was designed essentially to legalize the illegal Bush-Cheney wordless eavesdropping program, is unconstitutional. And there have been all sorts of lawsuits brought to argue that this law that Congress passed is unconstitutional, and yet no court has been able to rule on the merits of it, because the Obama administration has gone into court repeatedly and said two things: Number 1: All this is too secret to allow courts to rule on, and Number 2: Because we keep everything so secret, nobody can prove that theyve been subjected to this spying, and therefore nobody has standing to contest the constitutionality of it. So theres this huge argument out there, which is that all of this is illegal because its a violation of the Constitution, that the Obama DOJ has succeeded in preventing a judicial answer to.
Secondly, under the law, the U.S. government is free to intercept the communications of anybody they believe with 51 percent probability is not a U.S. citizen and is not on U.S. soil. So theyre free to go to any of these Internet companies or just simply take off the cables and fiber-optic wires that they have access to, whatever communications they want of anybody outside the United States whos not a U.S. person, and oftentimes those people are speaking to American citizens. The NSA is free to invade those communications without having to go into a FISA court and get a specific warrant, which is why when President Obama said nobodys listening to your calls without a warrant, he was simply not telling the truth. That was completely false and deceitful, what he said, because even under the law, the NSA is allowed to intercept communications with American citizens without getting a warrant. The only time they need a warrant is when theyre specifically targeting a U.S. person, an American citizen or somebody on U.S. soil. So its a scandal in that not just that theyre violating the Constitution, but also what the law allows, because of the level of abuse that it entails.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
89 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
I recall the exact opposite. The WSJ was one of few media pubs that rallied against this.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#2
What's your point here? That this cant be true because some lowly columnist wrote it?
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#7
Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for WSJ - not a columnist. arely is wrong on this.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#10
Nonetheless, it was known & revealed that everything was scooped up under the surveillance regimine.
Coyotl
Jul 2013
#53
Snowden only released evidence of Verizon customers' phone records being collected. nt
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#74
There was outrage back in 2006 when it was revealed that the telecoms were spying on
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#88
So now it's hypocritical to change ones mind? How would you expect to correct
xtraxritical
Jul 2013
#49
Not weighed in on this? The WSJ decides what to publish under its banner.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#51
Newspapers print op/eds that are contrary to their editorial board's position all the time.
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#61
It is presumed that people intend the natural consequences of their voluntary acts.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#67
The 1st article is clearly marked opinion, but the one I posted is not marked as an opinion...
Melinda
Jul 2013
#8
It has a byline. It is not the opinion of the WSJ, but rather the author whose name it carries. nt
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#12
You're wrong about this. Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for the WSJ, period.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#16
The opinion of the WSJ would be expressed in an editorial by the editorial board and without
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#17
It's not an editorial - it's a piece by an investigative journalist. Seriously, this is a bit anal.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#23
What other 'side' would a judge want to hear from when granting a search warrant?
randome
Jul 2013
#25
The WSJ and the Economist are fearful the NSA spying is uncovering money laundering and
byeya
Jul 2013
#43
Here's the law establishing it: it looks like a standard regulatory agency to me
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#87
Of course the WSJ would never have said this while Dummya Bush was a presidentin'.
Enthusiast
Jul 2013
#89