Latest Breaking News

Red Oak

(699 posts)

6. Last two paragraphs

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 03:52 PM

Sep 2013

Such a huge intelligence infrastructure and these two paragraphs are all that stand between me and its abuse?

Here, have some LoveInt:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/27/too-tempting-nsa-details-how-officials-spied-on-love-interests/
for the Fox News enthusiasts

or

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/
for the WSJ enthusiasts

Seems those last two paragraphs don't always work. Then what?

We have a Fourth amendment to our Constitution to keep abuse from happening in the first place. The NSA needs to be reigned in by Congress and the 4th amendment followed, rather than corrupted by "IntelSpeak" interpretations of the English language.

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

N.S.A. Examines Social Networks of U.S. Citizens (Decision Made In Secret 2010) [View all] kpete Sep 2013 OP

and yet they couldn't stop the Boston bombers. nt grasswire Sep 2013 #1

reading the whole thing: kpete Sep 2013 #2

the comments are interesting grasswire Sep 2013 #3

Love this exception: "or there is evidence of a crime." So much for Title III warrant requirements - leveymg Sep 2013 #5

yea ordinary crime questionseverything Sep 2013 #36

Last two paragraphs Red Oak Sep 2013 #6

Of course not. The CIA was "ontop" of them, just like the 9/11 hijackers and '93 WTC bombers before leveymg Sep 2013 #7

doesn't that mean the NSA is expendable, then? nt grasswire Sep 2013 #8

It means that we're all expendable, if the CIA and the WH think that's necessary. leveymg Sep 2013 #9

Could not have said it better... dixiegrrrrl Sep 2013 #14

That's the thing about amassing all this information - they can only work backwards, djean111 Sep 2013 #28

Yep, they are everywhere and will continue to be, maybe some should spend time and effort in Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #4

Well, yes The Green Manalishi Sep 2013 #15

One should be albe to figure out what is being done by the analysts but be that as it may be Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #16

The Patriot Act uses broad, vague uncertain language to define JDPriestly Sep 2013 #18

Or terrorist could be those who attempt to scare the crap out of those paranoid about Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #20

People should be scared of the NSA program of surveillance. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #23

I don't know the number of paranoid spy people who is scaring the crap out of those who listen to Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #24

I asked you to please tell me what percentage of Americans you believe are terrorists JDPriestly Sep 2013 #33

By your definition most people are terrorist as you say a terrorist can be someone in disagreement Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #37

I do not agree with defining terrorism as anyone who disagrees with me or others. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #38

Then you are disagreeing with your earlier post. I disagree with your opinion of NSA so Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #39

I am saying that the NSA definition of terrorism if taken from the Patriot Act could stretch to JDPriestly Sep 2013 #40

Do you think the soft target attack occurred in Nairobi? Do you think there was a bombing Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #41

Does "citing a foreign intelligence justification" include planning a trip outwith the USA? mwooldri Sep 2013 #10

Or Mister Smith bought a bag of pot... Hubert Flottz Sep 2013 #13

It just goes to show you... Hubert Flottz Sep 2013 #11

The stories of your extra girl friends seem to come to the surface long before the NSA was created. Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #17

It is worse than the KGB because it is less apparent JDPriestly Sep 2013 #19

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #12

The article mentions facebook profiles so does this mean facebook gave the government a backdoor cstanleytech Sep 2013 #21

Another demonstration of NSA idiocy and waste. Pholus Sep 2013 #22

Excellent post! Of course that is what it is really about. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #34

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OnyxCollie Sep 2013 #25

Looks like the NYT is finally making use of Snowden's materials. dkf Sep 2013 #26

K and R nt Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #27

Damn you Times, just when I am done with you... JackRiddler Sep 2013 #29

Change You Can BeLIEve In! blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #30

This is why it's #%^*ing crazy to participate in Facebook MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #31

^^^This^^^ Egnever Sep 2013 #32

True. This is about the only website I post on other than e-mail. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #35