Latest Breaking News

eomer

(3,845 posts)

30. The Executive Branch is ignoring the clear language that prohibits what they're doing.

Thu Jan 23, 2014, 01:46 PM

Jan 2014

That statute requires that records sought by the government ... be relevant to an authorized investigation.

The Executive Branch interprets that to mean that every single record that exists is relevant to an authorized investigation because "you need a haystack" in order to search for a needle. This level of intentional misconstruing of statutory language renders any and all laws meaningless, literally.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end [View all] muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 OP

Racist Ron Paul supporters..... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #1

They are, if they expect the President to do Congress's job. What you have here, though, is a msanthrope Jan 2014 #4

The report concludes essentially that Section 215 doesn't need fixing. eomer Jan 2014 #8

hmm. haven't read it yet. thanks for the heads up. n/t 2banon Jan 2014 #10

Read more than the conclusion, and you will see that this poster is imprecise. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #12

That's the problem when you read only the 'conclusion.' Specific statutory construction msanthrope Jan 2014 #11

It's basically impossible for legislation to be a bulwark against this type of abuse. eomer Jan 2014 #23

No--it's not. If you accept that the most powerful branch of the government, as defined msanthrope Jan 2014 #26

The Executive Branch is ignoring the clear language that prohibits what they're doing. eomer Jan 2014 #30

No--they are using the imprecise language of the statute! AND, Congress can still BAN msanthrope Jan 2014 #31

There is no way that the language of 215 can reasonably be interpreted to justify what they're doing eomer Jan 2014 #84

"The NSA's interpretation, as explained by hack James Clapper, is absurd and outrageous." Titonwan Jan 2014 #104

Thanks for the reminder wrt that asshat Sensenbrenner 2banon Jan 2014 #9

Well--- I think you and I are in agreement here....strict stautory construction of msanthrope Jan 2014 #13

I remember trying to make Congress do "their job" and vote the Patriot Act down. 2banon Jan 2014 #17

And now we have a chance to modify one of the more repugnant sections. 215 needs a hiding. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #20

Give it the "ole college try"? Worth doing. 2banon Jan 2014 #22

The point of the OP is that the independent review group adjuged that the NSA activities JDPriestly Jan 2014 #114

The Commission's conclusions are useful for political work but have no legal force struggle4progress Jan 2014 #115

It's about time. Titonwan Jan 2014 #2

Well, we will see if Congress reauthorizes 215. Do you think Obama should veto it, if it passes? n msanthrope Jan 2014 #5

I guess it's what the NSA have on him. Titonwan Jan 2014 #105

Excellent--Congress should act, and soon! nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #3

Nothing is more permanent christx30 Jan 2014 #14

Indeed, a government program established under the auspices of Article 1, Section 8 msanthrope Jan 2014 #16

But they never will. christx30 Jan 2014 #69

I was about to say that "Congress" and "act" shouldn't be in the same sentence mindwalker_i Jan 2014 #15

They are too invested in blaming Obama, instead of doing their jobs. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #18

Post removed Post removed Jan 2014 #6

Duh /nt dickthegrouch Jan 2014 #7

Good, we need to dismantle the bush national security state...nt Jesus Malverde Jan 2014 #19

Can anyone think of an alternative to metadata storage? randome Jan 2014 #21

That would make sense if... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #25

But they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans. Not that we know of. randome Jan 2014 #34

I mean no disrespect when I ask - You really don't know? Indi Guy Jan 2014 #42

First 2 links are in regard to the metadata, just phrased differently. randome Jan 2014 #45

The OP points out that the NSA is storing massive amounts of data on Americans muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #43

They're still talking about the metadata, though. randome Jan 2014 #46

Then edit your post to remove "they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #49

"Massive amounts of data" implies 'data vacuuming' to me. randome Jan 2014 #51

Well, that 's your idiosyncratic interpretation; 'massive' does not imply 'vacuuming' muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #53

Is there an alternative? SHOULD there be an alternative? randome Jan 2014 #54

You still haven't edited your falsehood (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #55

I honestly don't consider metadata phone records to be 'massive amounts of data'. randome Jan 2014 #56

There's probably as much in one day's metadata as in all the certificates for a person muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #57

Okay, but there is no evidence that this data is being searched... randome Jan 2014 #59

I believe I've just shown the metadata is far larger than SSA or IRS data muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #60

My 'okay' was impetuous. (I'M MULTI-TASKING HERE!) I disagree with you about the metadata. randome Jan 2014 #62

One birth. No death (for anyone living). An average of 2 marriage/divorces combined. muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #64

SSA is about so much more than retirement or disability. randome Jan 2014 #67

Again, that accumulates yearly, not daily muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #82

Thanks for the posts Titonwan Jan 2014 #106

Lots of things could be useful...... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #27

Of course. randome Jan 2014 #35

Seems pretty safe...... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #36

And it was the government that brought the situation to the attention of the judge. randome Jan 2014 #37

oh lordy lordy...... grasswire Jan 2014 #39

I doubt it costs much of anything to transfer data from the telecoms to the NSA. randome Jan 2014 #41

have you ever considered the possibility that some day dissent could be criminalized? grasswire Jan 2014 #48

Of course that's possible. It's always possible. randome Jan 2014 #52

a tyrant would turn first to the IRS... grasswire Jan 2014 #74

IRS and SSA have much more personal data about individual Ameicans. randome Jan 2014 #77

Did I misunderstand you? grasswire Jan 2014 #78

Yes, I meant personal data. Sorry I wasn't clear. randome Jan 2014 #80

I don't believe they don't have content. grasswire Jan 2014 #81

The GWOT is completely unjustifiable. ronnie624 Jan 2014 #44

I agree with everything you said except for the last. randome Jan 2014 #47

Where do you get this "4 levels of approval" from? I can't find it. neverforget Jan 2014 #100

'Levels of documentation' would be more accurate. randome Jan 2014 #103

Are you seriously arguing that we should give up our privacy now on the off chance that someday Vincardog Jan 2014 #58

I'm asking a couple of questions. randome Jan 2014 #61

The alternative is to investigate crimes after they happen. There is NO reason to treat us all like Vincardog Jan 2014 #63

And I appreciate an honest response. Really! randome Jan 2014 #65

The cost of Billions could be saved. The data has been stored for years and has Vincardog Jan 2014 #66

The cost is likely negligible. Data is easily transmitted and stored. randome Jan 2014 #68

The data center alone cost $1.7 Billion to build. You call that 'likely negligible'. You ignore my Vincardog Jan 2014 #71

I thought we were talking about the metadata. randome Jan 2014 #72

The data center is there to store the metadata forever. It is never discarded. An insurance policy Vincardog Jan 2014 #73

Geeze, ease up! I'm only explaining what I think they are thinking. randome Jan 2014 #75

Prove it. Vincardog Jan 2014 #76

You should know how this one goes by now. randome Jan 2014 #79

You said the data fits on a drive and is discarded. You said it, I say prove it. Vincardog Jan 2014 #83

I'm an IT developer. I can't prove shit to you as an anonymous poster whom you will never meet. randome Jan 2014 #87

You make statements of fact. When challenged you change the statement to an opinion. From now on Vincardog Jan 2014 #91

Is that a fact? randome Jan 2014 #92

How Drones Help Al Qaeda ronnie624 Jan 2014 #107

The 'vast amounts of data' relate to non-Americans. randome Jan 2014 #109

Your post typifies your propensity for pulling 'facts' out of your ass. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2014 #110

Then tell me why you think the metadata referred to above relates to Americans. randome Jan 2014 #111

Whatever 'metadata' the NSA isn't collecting ronnie624 Jan 2014 #112

The sharing of data, IMO, is the more serious issue. randome Jan 2014 #113

That's really creepy thinking. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #94

How would they find the phone numbers of potential co-conspirators if they don't have the metadata? randome Jan 2014 #96

How did they do this before they started spying on all Americans. There's your answer. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #97

Telecoms and the Information Age are relatively new phenomenon. randome Jan 2014 #98

Insert the Ben Franklin quote about the balance between security and liberty FOR THE1000x riderinthestorm Jan 2014 #102

Warrants are so quaint. neverforget Jan 2014 #101

Can the NSA defenders point to even a single instance JEB Jan 2014 #24

I cannot. ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #28

That and the massive piles of US Treasury money at stake. JEB Jan 2014 #29

I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #32

It is also worth pointing out (repeatedly) that having this kind of metadata Maedhros Jan 2014 #88

good that the truth is coming out - but on some levels the right response to this report is simply Douglas Carpenter Jan 2014 #33

No kidding. davidthegnome Jan 2014 #38

Is God a terrorist? polynomial Jan 2014 #40

yeah, it's only one hop from Bush to bin Laden family. grasswire Jan 2014 #50

Recommend. n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2014 #70

Then just why is big brother spending gazillions to watch us if not for indepat Jan 2014 #85

Link to the report (pdf, 238pp): struggle4progress Jan 2014 #86

Membership of PCLOB: struggle4progress Jan 2014 #89

Excerpt from Executive Summary: struggle4progress Jan 2014 #90

Up to the courts treestar Jan 2014 #93

Possibly because we aren't sheep? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #95

Well, some of us aren't. Luminous Animal Jan 2014 #99

You have to be a sheep to believe the in the rule of law? treestar Jan 2014 #116

So if there were cases where the program helped thwart terrorist activities then it would be ok? DCBob Jan 2014 #108

No, it wouldn't be "ok". It might not be a complete joke and a waste. TheKentuckian Jan 2014 #117

There is another possiblity sadoldgirl Jan 2014 #118

Yes. More than plausible. I'm sure its happened, just like rendition for torture... riderinthestorm Jan 2014 #119

Of course, it is. Titonwan Jan 2014 #120