Latest Breaking News

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)

16. This was open knowledge before Snowden dished out the goods

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:08 PM

Jul 2013

on a single FISA warrant pertaining to Verizon. Congress even retroactively provided legal immunity to providers who handed their info over to our 'intelligence' services years ago, to provide for the possibility that it might have been illegal.

Doesn't anyone recall the whole 'warrantless wiretapping' debacle starting in the Bush Administration? This is what it was all about - very little true 'warrantless' wiretapping was going on, but secret FISA courts were granting secret permission to secret agents to gather whatever secrets that they claimed they needed from whomever they needed it from.

We have a new major player in the American 'Game of Thrones' - the 'intelligence' agencies, and what can't they get when they basically have any and all dirt anyone's ever transmitted electronically, at least starting around 2002?

You can bet that each and every post on DU is being obtained by the NSA, categorized according to keywords and originating IP address, and analyzed in order to determine the identities of each poster.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US must fix secret Fisa courts, says top judge who granted surveillance orders [View all] kpete Jul 2013 OP

This is the fundamental problem, the process is NOT adversarial. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #1

The problem isn't that it's not adversarial... RiverNoord Jul 2013 #2

No, the problem isnt the secrecy either but rather with the lack of oversight. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #3

Agreed. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #10

OK... you're not describing real oversight RiverNoord Jul 2013 #19

The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is a special position. Igel Jul 2013 #21

I think dividing up the appointment of the FISA judges would be a good idea davidpdx Jul 2013 #26

It does not seem to me that we disagree. bemildred Jul 2013 #5

If the government or a private non-profit appoints someone to represent the adversaries JDPriestly Jul 2013 #7

Serious Question ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #13

Right - I mean, you couldn't put the party RiverNoord Jul 2013 #14

The EFF or ACLU RiverNoord Jul 2013 #17

"What Fisa does is not adjudication, but approval." Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #4

Again, thanks Ed Snowden for leaking, thereby opening the door for legal challenges and criticism.nt limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #6

This was open knowledge before Snowden dished out the goods RiverNoord Jul 2013 #16

I didn't think so. The NSA publicly denied the existence of mass surveillance until Snowden. limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #18

Of course the NSA publicly denied RiverNoord Jul 2013 #20

"Court"? ForgoTheConsequence Jul 2013 #8

Again, there never are adversarial hearings RiverNoord Jul 2013 #15

There is never anyone there "to argue the other side" over the issuance of a warrant . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #22

Congress has no oversight why? BornLooser Jul 2013 #9

Because Congress isn't the Judiciary. Igel Jul 2013 #23

Rememb..YGBFKM! In the Berman the Boomer voice: "C'mon, Man!" BornLooser Jul 2013 #24

Isn't that ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #11

Any objections? randome Jul 2013 #12

He's embarrassed, an outsider, and doesn't agree. Igel Jul 2013 #25

Yeah, why don't they fix this while they're at it..... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #27