• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

Isn't it ironic! This is the place where Obama haters and Obama supporters can come together and work for the same honest objectives!
 
You didn't say that at first you were leaning in the camp of throwing the guy a parade?

And yeah, I do care about damage being done, that's why I'm okay with the metadata collection: to prevent damage from being done. But before we can even get to that, people around here need to stop saying that what happened wasn't legal. It was. It is.

"...our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbour's ground, he must justify it by law."

Lord Camden
Entick v. Carrington (1765)
The Founders' Constitution
1765

"That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."

George Mason
Virginia Declaration of Rights
Virginia Convention of Delegates
June 12, 1776

I've got a million of them spanning a hundred years before and after the DoI
 
Snowden is this generation's Daniel Ellsberg, and I thank him for it. Him and Bradley both. :)
 
Snowden is this generation's Daniel Ellsberg, and I thank him for it. Him and Bradley both. :)

But the question is, will you be able to stay consistent on that? You call yourself a libertarian and that leads one to suspect that your motives are not in the interest of anything other than opposing Obama. I suspect that as with Rand Paul, had it been a repub president he would be seeing it as a necessary thing to spy on the people in the obvious interest of national security. And one thing's for sure, if there is another successful terrorist attack against the US, it will be Rand paul and his ilk who are quick to say that Obama didn't do enough. You too?

edit: You can take solace in the fact that everyone outside your country is siding with Snowden. That could cause you some reason for concern!
 
But the question is, will you be able to stay consistent on that? You call yourself a libertarian and that leads one to suspect that your motives are not in the interest of anything other than opposing Obama. I suspect that as with Rand Paul, had it been a repub president he would be seeing it as a necessary thing to spy on the people in the obvious interest of national security. And one thing's for sure, if there is another successful terrorist attack against the US, it will be Rand paul and his ilk who are quick to say that Obama didn't do enough. You too?

edit: You can take solace in the fact that everyone outside your country is siding with Snowden. That could cause you some reason for concern!

Yes, I will be able to stay consistent on my opinion of both men, though I have met neither. Usually I know good men when I see them, even from a distance, through the media.

Well I do oppose Obama, just as I opposed Bush before him. And though I voted against Jimmy Carter, once he got in office I greatly admired him.

Yeah, I saw the pictures of the rallies for Snowden in Hong Kong. People carrying signs saying "Prosecute Obama, let Snowden go" or something like that. The US is the laughing stock of the world, at the same time the world's 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Sad really, I had hoped for better government.

Them and Daniel Ellsberg, Ehren Watada, and quite a few others in minor roles that seldom make the news. I'm no Obama fan, Michael. Prematurely categorizing people can backfire. :peace
 
Yes, I will be able to stay consistent on my opinion of both men, though I have met neither. Usually I know good men when I see them, even from a distance, through the media.

Well I do oppose Obama, just as I opposed Bush before him. And though I voted against Jimmy Carter, once he got in office I greatly admired him.

Yeah, I saw the pictures of the rallies for Snowden in Hong Kong. People carrying signs saying "Prosecute Obama, let Snowden go" or something like that. The US is the laughing stock of the world, at the same time the world's 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Sad really, I had hoped for better government.

Them and Daniel Ellsberg, Ehren Watada, and quite a few others in minor roles that seldom make the news. I'm no Obama fan, Michael. Prematurely categorizing people can backfire. :peace

Good comments! No, I never did suspect that you were an Obama fan. You call yourself a libertarian and that would apparently be inconsistent with your agenda. Just apparently, not in actuality in my opinion, but that's a long hard subject to get into.

I'm not sure your exactly right on the US being the laugh of the world though. I myself don't see it that way as I realize that the US needs to spy on it's own people in order to protect it's interests. And I've already stated the reasons for which I believe that to be true. This is of course the point at which my agenda doesn't mesh with the libertarian agenda. In my opinion, your agenda is an honest one but it tends to not take into account the necessary realities of national security. And then besides that, it's a great hot button issue for Rand Paul who will do anything it takes to bring his fringe element along with him. Sadly, for him, it's only a fringe but he probably knows that as well as his father. It's going to be enough to keep him in office and that's the important part.
 
Good comments! No, I never did suspect that you were an Obama fan. You call yourself a libertarian and that would apparently be inconsistent with your agenda. Just apparently, not in actuality in my opinion, but that's a long hard subject to get into.

I'm not sure your exactly right on the US being the laugh of the world though. I myself don't see it that way as I realize that the US needs to spy on it's own people in order to protect it's interests. And I've already stated the reasons for which I believe that to be true. This is of course the point at which my agenda doesn't mesh with the libertarian agenda. In my opinion, your agenda is an honest one but it tends to not take into account the necessary realities of national security. And then besides that, it's a great hot button issue for Rand Paul who will do anything it takes to bring his fringe element along with him. Sadly, for him, it's only a fringe but he probably knows that as well as his father. It's going to be enough to keep him in office and that's the important part.

I have the occasional need for speed on a motorcycle, and I'm no fraidy cat. I never bought into the fear-mongering that came later, though I was traumatized by the events of 11 September. The government can't protect me from anything, and I've know that for decades. As we've given away all our constitutional rights because we're scared silly, just as Congress was when it passed the Unpatriot Act, government could not protect those folks who lived in Black Forest.

I do understand your suspicions about Rand Paul. Though I greatly admired his father, I'm not yet sure about the son.
 

It's a question that is too much of a populist hot button issue for people to understand and think about before they jump to conclusions. It's shallow and kneejerk to react so strongly against the government on this issue.

To understand what I have said you will need to understand how you can't challenge a motherhood issue, and indeed understand what a motherhood issue even is. But I am challenging it even though it's like challenging motherhood.

And so, in order to ever find out if I'm right on this you will have to wait perhaps a long time and then it won't even be satisfactorily answered. You see, if the terrorists were successful in detonating a nuclear device in one of America's big cities, the question would still not be answered. It would only be suspected that your NSA and other agencies that are charged with protecting your country have not been serving their intended purpose. That purpose is to keep America safe.

And so, you can have it any way you want it, it's a decision for Americans. Only be completely aware of the choices you choose. You can tie the hands of your anti-terrorist government agencies all you like but you have to do it in an honest way and that can't be only in the interest of bucking everything a black president does.

It's not an enviable position your country has put your fellow Americans into. But it 'is' the position now and there's nothing that can totally reverse it. You could only attempt to begin to reverse it. And that doesn't seem to be on the agenda of any American except perhaps Obama. Publicly at least, but not even publicly spoken by Obama simply because it wouldn't be politically correct to do so.
 
I have the occasional need for speed on a motorcycle, and I'm no fraidy cat. I never bought into the fear-mongering that came later, though I was traumatized by the events of 11 September. The government can't protect me from anything, and I've know that for decades. As we've given away all our constitutional rights because we're scared silly, just as Congress was when it passed the Unpatriot Act, government could not protect those folks who lived in Black Forest.

I do understand your suspicions about Rand Paul. Though I greatly admired his father, I'm not yet sure about the son.

I agree completely with this (couldn't rep you for some reason).

Even the last part.

I greatly admire Ron Paul.

Not sure about the son yet.
 
I agree completely with this.

Even the last part.

I greatly admire Ron Paul.

Not sure about the son yet.

But the American people didn't admire Ron Paul in sufficienct numbers and that is because they didn't buy into the kneejerk politics. they knew that protecting their country was always going to trump Ron Paul and his freedom ideologies. The only thing he 'did' get right is the fact that more revenge attacks were coming if American foreign policy continued in the same vein.
 
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee blasted the Obama administration in the wake of news that officials secretly obtained records for Verizon phone calls made in the United States, and called for hearings into the program.

“We believe this type of program is far too broad and is inconsistent with our nation’s founding principles,” said a joint statement from prominent Democrats on the committee, including ranking member Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). “We cannot defeat terrorism by compromising our commitment to our civil rights and liberties.”

The letter was also signed by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee, and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations subpanel.

“We strongly disagree with those who would assert that because this type of program appears to be long standing and Members of Congress may have been briefed, that it is acceptable to us or the Congress,” the group wrote.

“A classified briefing which does not permit any public discussion does not imply approval or acceptance,” they added.

Democrats on Thursday fired off most of the criticism against the program.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said he has been briefed on some of the information generally previously and “of course” he is troubled by it.

“We’ve been unable to speak to it because it is classified,” Durbin said.

“To say that every American’s records of phone conversations are now open to government scrutiny really goes to beyond that standard,” Durbin said.

“This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of Americans’ privacy. I have had significant concerns about the intelligence community over-collecting information about Americans’ telephone calls, emails, and other records,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said the report “concerns me.”

“The administration I think owes it to the American public to comment on what authorities it thinks it has and I’ll leave it there,” he told reporters Thursday.

Key House Democrats want hearings on NSA - Ginger Gibson and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com
 
if not snowden, who?

congress?

“I can assure you the phone number tracking of non-criminal, non-terrorist suspects was not discussed [at the administration's classified briefings],” said [Congressman Aaron] Schock. “Most members have stopped going to their classified briefings because they rarely tell us anything we don’t already know in the news. It really has become a charade.”

Lawmakers rebut Obama's data defense - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

"By the way,” [Senator Jeff] Merkley continued. “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.”

Dem. Senator disputes Obama's claims that Congress was briefed - The Hill

The only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.

U.S. is spying on Web servers - Philly.com

the judiciary?

US government invokes special privilege to stop scrutiny of data mining | World news | guardian.co.uk

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones

corn calls it kafka, fournier (you don't know the editor of the elite natl journal and longtime associated press bureau chief, regular msnbc contributor---you're too busy clicking and entering your narcissistic, unsubstantiated opinions and self fondling fantasies about the way things should be...) likes alice

meanwhile, on earth all the adults are talking about orwell

stay tuned
 
Last edited:
more leaks, more scrubbed talking points

yesterday: Leak report omits Panetta allegation - Austin Wright - POLITICO.com

The official version of a Pentagon report about its dealings with Hollywood over the making of “Zero Dark Thirty” omits allegations included in an earlier leaked copy, which alleged then-CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed classified information.

The Defense Department’s final version of the document appeared Friday, but in an earlier draft, which was published last week by the Project on Government Oversight, Panetta was accused of discussing classified information at a 2011 CIA event attended by the film’s screenwriter.

Bridget Ann Serchak, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s inspector general, said issues related to Panetta were referred to the CIA’s IG.

“As with any IG work product, the working draft was edited and revised during a rigorous internal review process,” Serchak said in a statement to POLITICO. “No third parties, to include anyone from the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the Executive Office of the President, attempted to influence the content of the report or its release date.”

The final version of the IG’s report references the CIA event but omits a paragraph in the draft version that said Panetta “specifically recognized the unit that conducted the [Osama bin Laden] raid and identified the ground commander by name.” That information was protected from public release, according to the draft report, and amounted to divulging a secret.

The final report released Friday also makes clear there was resistance within the Pentagon to providing access to the makers of “Zero Dark Thirty.” Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal did not formally request the Defense Department’s support for the film but did meet with military officials as part of their research.

The report quotes “DoD’s director of entertainment media” — Philip Strub — as saying he wasn’t eager to deal with the two filmmakers because of their portrayal of the military in a previous film, “The Hurt Locker,” but was overruled by higher-ups.

“I wasn’t given the choice of whether to authorize it or not,” he said, according to the final report. “I mean, these senior people do whatever they want.”

In a 2011 email, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Doug Wilson told Boal, “If you have any problems with [Strub] on any of this, come to me.”

Later, Wilson emailed Boal that he and other top Pentagon officials would “work to unclog the SOCOM pathway for you,” referring to U.S. Special Operations Command. Boal wanted to interview Navy SEALs as part of his research, but Special Operations Command officials had expressed reservations about making people available.

Investigators began looking into the Pentagon’s relationship with the “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmakers after a New York Times columnist wrote that Obama administration officials hoped the movie, then expected for release around the time of the 2012 elections, would portray the president in a heroic light and help him at the polls.

a rigorous internal review process, alright

LOL!

it all depends, apparently, on just who is gettin leaked on

Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him - CBS News

remember (bush holdover) robert gates' stfu policy?

Secretary Gates’s STFU Policy - ABC News

anyone?
 
Last edited:
more leaks, more scrubbed talking points

yesterday: Leak report omits Panetta allegation - Austin Wright - POLITICO.com





a rigorous internal review process, alright

LOL!

it all depends, apparently, on just who is gettin leaked on



Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him - CBS News

remember (bush holdover) robert gates' stfu policy?

Secretary Gates’s STFU Policy - ABC News

anyone?

Good afternoon, Prof :2wave:

The more we hear about these scandals, the worse it gets! Our Security is compromised so BHO can look like a hero? Why? What game is this? :thumbdown:
 
Good afternoon, Prof :2wave:

The more we hear about these scandals, the worse it gets! Our Security is compromised so BHO can look like a hero? Why? What game is this? :thumbdown:

If more Americans would stop and consider that your freedoms were confiscated long before Obama, they would be able to work their way through this thing with Snowden. Nothing is going to be gained for the US in hearing Snowden blow more cover but there could be lots to lose.

Before the kneejerk reaction that goes along with the phony libertarian agenda of making people angry at Obama, they should have stopped and thought of the consequences of stopping security orgs from doing their jobs. Yet, Americans don't do that and continue to believe that their rights were secure before Snowden because that's what they're supposed to be thinking.

Believe me, from a Canadian POV, you don't have near the rights that we have in countries where politics playing isn't the order of the day, every day. You've been enslaved to your system of crass and the irresponsible style of capitalism in so many ways.

The highest per capita income in the world with the world's second highest income inequality?
No affordable health care for millions of your own people?
Losing your homes to extremist capitalist corruption?
That's the kind of freedom America is all about?
 
If more Americans would stop and consider that your freedoms were confiscated long before Obama, they would be able to work their way through this thing with Snowden. Nothing is going to be gained for the US in hearing Snowden blow more cover but there could be lots to lose.

Before the kneejerk reaction that goes along with the phony libertarian agenda of making people angry at Obama, they should have stopped and thought of the consequences of stopping security orgs from doing their jobs. Yet, Americans don't do that and continue to believe that their rights were secure before Snowden because that's what they're supposed to be thinking.

Believe me, from a Canadian POV, you don't have near the rights that we have in countries where politics playing isn't the order of the day, every day. You've been enslaved to your system of crass and the irresponsible style of capitalism in so many ways.

The highest per capita income in the world with the world's second highest income inequality?
No affordable health care for millions of your own people?
Losing your homes to extremist capitalist corruption?
That's the kind of freedom America is all about?

excellent post!
 
Believe me

link?

LOL!

the nyt doesn't believe obama

NYT: Obama admin 'has lost all credibility'

meanwhile:

The Dirty Secrets of Washington Elites - NationalJournal.com

hardly a neocon, the elite natl journal's ron fournier offers as premise: "at a time when americans have little faith in us political and media institutions, it's not sufficient to say trust us"

"secrecy sows doubt and paranoia"

"surely it's possible to start an open and honest conversation about drone warfare, domestic surveillance, and big data in general terms that don't expose cherished sources and methods"

how does fournier know?

"it's done all the time"

bush sold "bad" intelligence to get us into iraq, obama outed the seals who got ubl (defense secty robt gates said stfu), the admin sourced the kill list, the stuxnet virus, the underwear bomber...

Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him - CBS News

"it's done all the time, usually when transparency suits the white house's political agenda"

and there's "the orwellian habit:"

"virtually every unauthorized leak, including the most recent ones about the prying eyes and ears at the nsa, is followed by the release of classified information (an authorized leak) that supports the administration's case against leaks"

fournier, career dc bureau chief for ap and regular msnbc contributor, concludes:

The Bush administration, Obama said in 2007, "puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand."

Telling Americans they need to be treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed BS) or exposed to greater threats is Obama's false choice. The president and his fellow Washington elites need to start treating Americans like grown-ups.

are YOU a mushroom?
 
it's all about trust

wap'so karen tumulty monday:

Surveillance, IRS, media controversies fuel angst on left and right - The Washington Post

A late-spring storm of Washington controversies has created a rare event in these partisan, polarized times: a shared I-told-you-so moment for the left and the right.

For anyone worried about the potential for government overreach, the past few weeks have brought more cause for concern.

The Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny. The Justice Department subpoenaing the records of media organizations in a search-and-destroy mission against their sources of information. The National Security Agency sweeping up phone records and secretly tapping into the Internet services that have become the nervous system of 21st-century life.

All raise questions that go beyond the ideological differences over the size and cost of government that have come to define the Democratic and Republican parties.

That explains why the newly revealed leaker of classified information about government surveillance, 29-year-old tech specialist Edward Snowden, has been hailed as a “hero” by figures as diverse as conservative commentator Glenn Beck, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

And the scandals — or pseudo-scandals, depending on one’s point of view — land at a time when polls show the public’s trust in the federal government is at or near all-time lows.

“All of those things fit together as almost a patchwork quilt of too much, too far and too intrusive,” Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart said. “It’s not bringing people together. It’s uniting in outrage.”

it's thru the looking glass, says the post

david corn (of 47% fame) calls it kafka

constitutional law prof obama in 2008 railed against violations of the constitution, abuse of power, betrayals of civil liberties

but that was before he "matured" and "expanded exponentially" the executive's powers to search

so leahy of vermont and lee of utah are suddenly and eagerly working together

hey, obama wanted bipartisanship...

dick durbin, citing rand paul, says "libertarians meet the left"

only united in opposition to what obama is doing

tumulty recalls paul's filibuster to stop holder from:

Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal - HuffPo

who needs a warrant? especially when you're the most transparent president of all time?

the kill list which paul protested was one of those stragetic leaks to the nytimes that came FROM white house staff

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57452055/obama-only-goes-after-leaks-that-dont-benefit-him/

paul's 13 hour speech elicited a million tweets, half with the hash tag "standwithrand"

uber lib ron wyden is one of paul's most privileged pals

tumulty cites a cnn poll conducted after boston: 61% are more concerned about civil liberties than 31% who lean towards security

durbin, the whip, is surprised

“the poll was done after boston, when you would have thought that would have colored the answer, and it didn’t"

grover norquist (ugh) sees a coalition: the aggrieved now include tea party activists who believe they were unfairly singled out by the irs, liberals who expected obama to exercise more restraint, and the news media fearful of a chilling effect on the flow of vital information

“it’s easier for both teams to say those are powers no one should have,” goes grover, "it gored the right, it gored the left, and it gored the judge---the press”

stay tuned
 
cnn tuesday:

Second term mostly drama for Obama - CNN.com

Less than five months in, Obama and his administration appear knocked off balance by a barrage of controversies and criticisms exacerbating the bitter political battles that marked his first four years in office.

He's under fire from the right and left, accused by some ofconspiratorial machinations to grab even more powerthan the leader of the free world legally holds.

Headlines are dominated by scandals such as the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups and classified leaks that disclosed details of the vast data mining and surveillance apparatus created after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile,Republicans and some Democrats say his attorney general should resign over various issues including secret subpoenas of journalist phone records.
Even the first lady got heckled -- at a Democratic fundraiser, no less. While the issue was gay rights, the incident showed how Obama supporters also were frustrated by what they consider to be a lack of sufficient progress on progressive issues they expect the president to champion.

To columnist and CNN contributor John Avlon, the latest Washington scandals "have put the president off balance," withthe administration on defense instead of driving the agenda.

"The choice will be in how the administration tries to deal with it," Avlon said. "If it's in denial and acts like these events are occurring outside its purview or control, that will be a big problem."

"This is a president now who's dealing with issues he never thought he was going to have to deal with," [CNN senior analyst Gloria] Borger said Monday, referring to drone strikes, government surveillance and classified leaks.

Avlon and Borger agreed that Obama must be proactive in dealing with the newly revealed details about how the government has access to phone records and Internet activity as tools in fighting terrorism.

instead, according to cnn, the president is telling us to "trust him"

"no one is listening to your phone calls"

however, when bush did less, the president platformed against this "false choice"

"you can't have 100% security and 100% privacy," he says today

nsa activities are merely "minor encroachments"

cnn chief national correspondent john king: "if the president doesn't try to get ahead of it, guess what, he'll get dragged along with it"

all of the above complicate immigration reform, continues cnn

and syria

(as well as anything else the president contemplates, like guns, gay marriage, tax reform...)

when's the last time he griped about sequester, whatever happened to green investment?

and then there's the trouble at foggy bottom (the state dept), which has been rocked by cbs' scoop saying inspector general aurelia fedenisn found 8 crimes committed by state employees (including the belgian ambassador's soliciting minors for sex) which were COVERED UP by the heavy hitters on the top floor of the building

as well as the doj, where eric holder told congress on may 15 that he was not aware of even "potential" prosecution of press participants

huffpo, wapo and the natl journal have all called for the ignorant (according to holder) ag to resign

it all comes down to trust

as in, few anymore have any in this white house

the nyt editorialized after the nsa broke, "obama has lost all credibility"

this aint watergate, the ex sycophants at cnn conclude

but remember john avlon's warning at the top: "if the administration is in denial and acts like these events are occurring outside its purview or control, that will be a big problem"

obama's matured, but has he come clean?

stay tuned
 
last nite:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian.

There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."

A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established "listening posts" that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, "whether they originate within the country or overseas." That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.

A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, says he was surprised to see the 2008 FISA Amendments Act be used to vacuum up information on American citizens. "Everyone who voted for the statute thought it was about international communications," he said.

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

nadler's disclosure that nsa analysts can listen to calls without court orders came after a house judiciary hearing thursday which talked to fbi director robt mueller

mueller tried to downplay concerns about nsa spying by claiming that in order to listen to a phone call the nsa would first need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the fisa court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual"

"then I can say the following," nadler responded, "we heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day, we heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that"

"in other words, what you just said is incorrect, so there's a conflict"

difi (senator feinstein), one of the nsa's most notable defenders, "separately acknowledged this week that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the content of a call"

the nsa's "billions of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database can be accessed by an analyst who's part of the nsa's workforce of thousands of people who are trained annually in minimization procedures" (according to odni michael mcconnell)

"if it were a us person inside the united states, now that would stimulate the system to get a warrant," mcconnell testified, "and that is how the process would work"

"now, if you have foreign intelligence data you publish it, because it has foreign intelligence value," concluded obama's odni

mcconnell also said that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, "no matter what the law actually says," to order domestic spying without warrants

former fbi counterterrorism agent tim clemente appeared on cnn in may and spoke about the same broad listening capabilities

william binney, 30 year nsa technical director, has been all over the place saying the same thing (linked above)

"a nyt article in 2009 revealed the nsa engaged in significant and systemic overcollection of americans' domestic communications that alarmed intelligence officials"

the doj responded to the times story way back then assuring all concerned the dept "took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance with the law"

the eef, electronic frontier foundation, by the way, is the party which is trying thru foia to force the doj to release that 86 page report by the fisa judge which finds the nsa's actions "unreasonable under the fourth amendment"

stay tuned
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom