Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court's decision on spying

This is ridiculous.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/09/obama-fisa-court-surveillance-phone-records

The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months. The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop. US officials confirmed last week that they would ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court – better known as the Fisa court, a panel that meets in secret as a step in the surveillance process and thus far has only ever had the government argue before it – to turn the domestic bulk collection spigot back on.

Click to expand...

the king is at it again.

he should be held in contempt of court. the fisa court is not above a federal appeals court and has to abide by that ruling
just as it would have to abide by a SCOTUS ruling.

The most transparent administration ladies and gentlemen.

Anomalism said:

This is ridiculous.

Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court's decision on spying | US news | The Guardian

Click to expand...

And to think, a healthy chunk of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 did so because they thought he would end this kind of surveillance.

ludin said:

the king is at it again.

he should be held in contempt of court. the fisa court is not above a federal appeals court and has to abide by that ruling
just as it would have to abide by a SCOTUS ruling.

Click to expand...

The reason why we have presidents committing these extra-constitutional acts is because brown nosed partisans won't hold their own accountable.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html?_r=0

jmotivator said:

And to think, a healthy chunk of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 did so because they thought he would end this kind of surveillance.

Click to expand...

True enough, and there's a healthy chunk of that original base very pissed of at Obama for this and many other broken campaign promises.

like i have said in other threads, this administration has been really disappointing when it comes to domestic surveillance, just as previous administrations were. the difference is that this one promised to behave differently.

my prediction is that no matter who is elected, the patriot act is permanent, and the surveillance will not just continue, but will also expand.

Montecresto said:

True enough, and there's a healthy chunk of that original base very pissed of at Obama for this and many other broken campaign promises.

Click to expand...

And they will vote for Hilary and be really pissed when she doesn't do anything about it either.

Montecresto said:

The reason why we have presidents committing these extra-constitutional acts is because brown nosed partisans won't hold their own accountable.

Click to expand...

Irrespective of the rationale, a President shouldn't be committing extra-constitutional acts.

jmotivator said:

And they will vote for Hilary and be really pissed when she doesn't do anything about it either.

Click to expand...

That's why they should vote for Bernie.

Helix said:

like i have said in other threads, this administration has been really disappointing when it comes to domestic surveillance, just as previous administrations were. the difference is that this one promised to behave differently.

my prediction is that no matter who is elected, the patriot act is permanent, and the surveillance will not just continue, but will also expand.

Click to expand...

Exactly, what makes Obama's more egregious is his promises otherwise!

jmotivator said:

And they will vote for Hilary and be really pissed when she doesn't do anything about it either.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you said they, because I'll never EVER pull the chain for Hillary. I'd vote for Paul ahead of her.

Anomalism said:

That's why they should vote for Bernie.

Click to expand...

Well, if they are a single issue voter, maybe. I would guess that a lot of anti-NSA voters are not socialists.

Anomalism said:

This is ridiculous.

Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court's decision on spying | US news | The Guardian

Click to expand...

Thanks for submitting that chilling information. Just the sound of "Secret Court" should inspire an outrageous Orwellian image to anyone who has even glanced at our Bill of Rights lately.

I'd like to see the hoods yanked off every member of the "secret surveillance court " & their "mug shots" & vital statistics highlighted on every Major News outlet in the country.

With transparency like this, who needs "Big Brother"

nota bene said:

Irrespective of the rationale, a President shouldn't be committing extra-constitutional acts.

Click to expand...

Was that missed in my commentary. I've been pissed off about this since the Church committees disclosures. There's only one way to stop such things, and that's for partisans to hold their own accountable. But that's not ever going to happen, ever. Is it lost on you that the partisan right doesn't let a day, hell, an hour go by but what they're posting another Obama infraction, but will defend a republican to the dying breath. And when Bush was president, the patronizing left picked out every single thing he did for exploitation, but look at the cover they give Obama now! Partisans are the problem, a president will simply do what he's allowed to get away with.

Montecresto said:

I'm glad you said they, because I'll never EVER pull the chain for Hillary. I'd vote for Paul ahead of her.

Click to expand...

Paul would be much better than Hillary. If Republicans were smart they would get him nominated and crush the democrats.

And Sanders is most certainly not a one issue candidate, and he speaks a populist message that resonates with Americans.

Here’s Sanders, the kind of guy who is never taken seriously in D.C., on this week’s Fox News Sunday making the kind of point about income inequality that really rattles the centrist crowd:
“What we’re seeing, Chris [Wallace], right now is that for 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing. Millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages despite a huge increase in technology and productivity. And what we have seen during that period is a massive transfer of trillions of dollars from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and income inequality, where you have 99 percent of all new income today going to the top 1 percent.”
Bold claim. As it turns out, it’s also mostly true. Average Americans’ income has stagnated or gone down since the start of the Great Recession in the late 2000s, while virtually all of the recovery has benefited the wealthy.
Here’s another issue on which Democrats would do well to heed Sanders’ warnings: The Trans-Pacific Partnershp, a free trade deal with Asia that was mostly negotiated in secret and critics accuse of being a laundry list of corporate handouts. The Obama administration has found itself in the strange position of agreeing with Republicans that the deal should be passed – and Obama has gone so far as to accuse the progressive wing of the Democratic Party of being dead wrong on the issue.

Bernie Sanders Has Been Right On Just About Everything - The Daily Banter

And find me another senator that's been in Washington for thirty years that's worth less than half a mill. This dude is the real McCoy!

I remember when we used to laugh at the Soviet Union and the KGB.

Not so funny these days.

i agree with the other poster... the mere thought/notion of "secret courts" is ridiculous to me

and the president will, in public, vow to pass a law to ban this surveillance and then turn around have his administration ask a secret court to continue it...

then again, at this point, i am so cynical about the spying thing that i never believed they'd stop doing it even after the original ruling

you think that the nsa and these other organizations, with all the equipment and infrastructure setup to do this, were simply going to unplug everything and delete all the files?

Montecresto said:

The reason why we have presidents committing these extra-constitutional acts is because brown nosed partisans won't hold their own accountable.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

this is a red herring argument.

it has nothing to do with the topic. the fact is that Obama is now attempting to ignore an US appeals court decision that says it is illegal to do that.
by doing this he should be held in contempt of court.

any other argument about bush is simply a red herring argument and not worth commenting on.

B'smith said:

Thanks for submitting that chilling information. Just the sound of "Secret Court" should inspire an outrageous Orwellian image to anyone who has even glanced at our Bill of Rights lately.

I'd like to see the hoods yanked off every member of the "secret surveillance court " & their "mug shots" & vital statistics highlighted on every Major News outlet in the country.

With transparency like this, who needs "Big Brother"

Click to expand...

the FISA court are appeal court judges that are put in place but the chief justice of the SCOTUS.
the FISA court is still bound by the rulings of the other courts and must comply.

I can see the need of having some operational things kept quiet as there is no way the FBI could catch the people they do.