Keith Olbermann attack Obama on warantless wiretapping

[Robor]

Good for Olberman! :thumbsup: This is one issue I thought the Obama administration would 'change' for the better. I bashed GWB over it and I'll bash Obama the same.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not sure whether it's liberals standing on principle or just being so hardheaded they refuse to recognize it's possible that Obama sees the very same need that Bush saw regarding the surviellence issue. The main problem that confronts them is if they admit that Obama is right they'll passively acknowledge that Bush was right as well and I highly doubt that goes could be tolerated by any of the more rabid anti-Bush liberals at all. The fact that it's primarily the more rabid, anti-Bush liberals making all the noise about this makes me believe it's more about their own pride and ego than any facts or truth.

So now go ahead and bring on the indignant responses. I'm expecting them.

Or they are pissed about stories like this

 

[SP33Demon]

Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

Olbermann, Greenwald and these extreme Constitutionalist lawyers don't seem to get that Obama's not continuing Bush's now defunct TSP programs, but the policy of bypassing the 4th Amendment and not requiring a warrant when the case involves a foreign entity and an American discussing national security. Radicals like the EFF claim:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This proves they have no fcking clue about what's going on:

1) They are talking about a program that doesn't exist anymore (Bush's TSP which was ILLEGAL and targeted domestic chatter, not international).
2) Classified, national security cases cannot be made publicly "reviewable by the courts" nor "tranparent". Bonus points to anyone who can figure out why.
3) Millions of Americans aren't going to be victim to NSA's "dragnet surveillance", unless you think that millions of Americans are discussing/plotting national security with foreign entities.

All it takes is one phone call from Afghanistan to activate a sleeper cell, a warrant should not be required. Take your fcking tinfoil hats off and wake up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for Olberman! :thumbsup: This is one issue I thought the Obama administration would 'change' for the better. I bashed GWB over it and I'll bash Obama the same.

1. Do you understand what is meant, technically, when the mass-media refers to "wiretap" or "wiretap program(s)"?

2. Do you have any idea which program(s), by name or description, Obama has decided to continue?

3. What aspect(s) of those program(s), specifically, makes them "illegal" or "unconstitutional" in your opinion?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

Olbermann, Greenwald and these extreme Constitutionalist lawyers don't seem to get that Obama's not continuing Bush's now defunct TSP programs, but the policy of bypassing the 4th Amendment and not require a warrant when the case involves a foreign entity and an American. Radicals like the EFF claim:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This proves they have no fcking clue about what's going on:

1) They are talking about a program that doesn't exist anymore (Bush's TSP which was ILLEGAL and targeted domestic chatter, not international).
2) Classified, national security cases cannot be made publicly "reviewable by the courts".
3) Millions of Americans aren't going to be victim to NSA's "dragnet surveillance", unless you think that millions of Americans are discussing/plotting national security with foreign entities.

All it takes is one phone call from Afghanistan to activate a sleeper cell, a warrant should not be required. Take your fcking tinfoil hats off and wake up.

So this can't happen again?

 

[lupi]

So it seems the unofficial obama administration PR man finally remembers his actual job. It only took the network canning him from the head spot on election coverage, several print and tv articles laughing at him for being anything but a neutral journalist, and the affirmation of bush policies by the agents of change before he remembers what it was.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Robor
So this can't happen again?

So you'd like to limit or eliminate our abilities to collect on foreign soil as well?

Interesting...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

Olbermann, Greenwald and these extreme Constitutionalist lawyers don't seem to get that Obama's not continuing Bush's now defunct TSP programs, but the policy of bypassing the 4th Amendment and not require a warrant when the case involves a foreign entity and an American. Radicals like the EFF claim:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This proves they have no fcking clue about what's going on:

1) They are talking about a program that doesn't exist anymore (Bush's TSP which was ILLEGAL and targeted domestic chatter, not international).
2) Classified, national security cases cannot be made publicly "reviewable by the courts".
3) Millions of Americans aren't going to be victim to NSA's "dragnet surveillance", unless you think that millions of Americans are discussing/plotting national security with foreign entities.

All it takes is one phone call from Afghanistan to activate a sleeper cell, a warrant should not be required. Take your fcking tinfoil hats off and wake up.

So this can't happen again?

Did you even read your own article?

"These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.

Pop quiz: When was FISA 2008 passed? What date did the FISC court rule on how to define what is legal spying that doesn't infringe on 4th Amendment Rights? What policy, i.e. the topic at hand, is Obama admin continuing that the Bush admin finalized?

If this happened in the present, it would be alarming. It only proves what we knew about Bush's illegal spying.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

Olbermann, Greenwald and these extreme Constitutionalist lawyers don't seem to get that Obama's not continuing Bush's now defunct TSP programs, but the policy of bypassing the 4th Amendment and not requiring a warrant when the case involves a foreign entity and an American discussing national security. Radicals like the EFF claim:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This proves they have no fcking clue about what's going on:

1) They are talking about a program that doesn't exist anymore (Bush's TSP which was ILLEGAL and targeted domestic chatter, not international).
2) Classified, national security cases cannot be made publicly "reviewable by the courts" nor "tranparent". Bonus points to anyone who can figure out why.
3) Millions of Americans aren't going to be victim to NSA's "dragnet surveillance", unless you think that millions of Americans are discussing/plotting national security with foreign entities.

All it takes is one phone call from Afghanistan to activate a sleeper cell, a warrant should not be required. Take your fcking tinfoil hats off and wake up.

You live in a pathetic state of fear, all the fear mongerers are themselves scared little babies. I don't give a fuck if it's an international call, if I got relatives overseas calling me the NSA should not be snooping in. There is risk in the world, omgz we might have a sleeper cell activated. I don't doubt that will happen sometime in the future, it's impossible to prevent everything 100%, but our first line response forces will have to do the best they can to respond to any incident.

We could install cameras everywhere, monitor every call and shit will STILL happen. The point is grow a pair and stop running around scared of every shadow in the world. Until people are willing to grow up and except risk in their lives you will have people peddling these safety measures which are nothing more than a violation of our rights.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CLite
You live in a pathetic state of fear, all the fear mongerers are themselves scared little babies. I don't give a fuck if it's an international call, if I got relatives overseas calling me the NSA should not be snooping in. There is risk in the world, omgz we might have a sleeper cell activated. I don't doubt that will happen sometime in the future, it's impossible to prevent everything 100%, but our first line response forces will have to do the best they can to respond to any incident.

So you're advocating that we stop monitoring foreign phone calls as well?

I hate to tell you this, but if you have foreign contacts, they are fair game, and rightfully so.

This issue has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with due diligence.

We could install cameras everywhere, monitor every call and shit will STILL happen. The point is grow a pair and stop running around scared of every shadow in the world. Until people are willing to grow up and except risk in their lives you will have people peddling these safety measures which are nothing more than a violation of our rights.

The President does not have the luxury of "accepting risk" for incidents that could be prevented through the monitoring of foreign communication.

If your goal is to protect foreigners from being monitored by US intelligence, then I've got news for you: no fucking way.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Robor
So this can't happen again?

So you'd like to limit or eliminate our abilities to collect on foreign soil as well?

Interesting...

Sorry, get a warrant if it's required.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Robor

So this can't happen again?

Did you even read your own article?

"These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.

Pop quiz: When was FISA 2008 passed? What date did the FISC court rule on how to define what is legal spying that doesn't infringe on 4th Amendment Rights? What policy, i.e. the topic at hand, is Obama admin continuing that the Bush admin finalized?

If this happened in the present, it would be alarming. It only proves what we knew about Bush's illegal spying.

Yes, I read the entire article before I linked it. No, I don't care what the dates are when it *was* abused. I care about preventing it from being abused again. If 'they' have cause to listen to someones conversation get a warrant to do it.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
It just goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Olbermann is a moron and a blowhard, but on this one he's got it right and both Bush and Obama have it completely wrong.

Olbermann is better than O'Reilly or Limbaugh

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Robor
So this can't happen again?

So you'd like to limit or eliminate our abilities to collect on foreign soil as well?

Interesting...

Sorry, get a warrant if it's required.

A "warrant" for collection conducted on foreign soil!??

Are you opposed to all forms of espionage against foreign nations, or just "teh evul wiretappinzz"?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

Olbermann, Greenwald and these extreme Constitutionalist lawyers don't seem to get that Obama's not continuing Bush's now defunct TSP programs, but the policy of bypassing the 4th Amendment and not requiring a warrant when the case involves a foreign entity and an American discussing national security. Radicals like the EFF claim:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This proves they have no fcking clue about what's going on:

1) They are talking about a program that doesn't exist anymore (Bush's TSP which was ILLEGAL and targeted domestic chatter, not international).
2) Classified, national security cases cannot be made publicly "reviewable by the courts" nor "tranparent". Bonus points to anyone who can figure out why.
3) Millions of Americans aren't going to be victim to NSA's "dragnet surveillance", unless you think that millions of Americans are discussing/plotting national security with foreign entities.

All it takes is one phone call from Afghanistan to activate a sleeper cell, a warrant should not be required. Take your fcking tinfoil hats off and wake up.

You live in a pathetic state of fear, all the fear mongerers are themselves scared little babies. I don't give a fuck if it's an international call, if I got relatives overseas calling me the NSA should not be snooping in. There is risk in the world, omgz we might have a sleeper cell activated. I don't doubt that will happen sometime in the future, it's impossible to prevent everything 100%, but our first line response forces will have to do the best they can to respond to any incident.

We could install cameras everywhere, monitor every call and shit will STILL happen. The point is grow a pair and stop running around scared of every shadow in the world. Until people are willing to grow up and except risk in their lives you will have people peddling these safety measures which are nothing more than a violation of our rights.

Are you a fcking moron? You aren't going to be surveilled on an international call unless you've triggered 5 safeguards as outlined by the FISC court ruling: "This matrix of safeguards comprises at least five components: targeting procedures, minimization procedures, a procedure to ensure that a significant purpose of a surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information, procedures incorporated through Executive Order 12333 2.5, and [redacted text] procedures [redacted text] outlined in an affidavit supporting the certifications." If you are filtered as a target through these safeguards then you deserve to be targeted. Who's the scared one? It sounds like you when it comes to the government's 24/7 monitoring of metadata traffic as one of the steps above (legal btw, it's not wiretapping). It has nothing to do with fear but everything to do with improving our intel while giving the average citizen MORE rights than they've enjoyed in the past because the law is clearly defined now (except Article II presidential entitlements but that's a whole other topic).

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

No, the "fcking morons" are those who believe that smokescreen because they're more comfortable with their ears tucked between their gulteal cheeks. For more enlightenment about what is actually being monitored, ask whistle blower, Mark Klein, the guy who actually installed the NSA's "Internet vacuum cleaner" in Room 641A of AT&T's Folsom Street headquarters in San Francisco.

Wiretap Whistle-Blower's Account
04.07.06
Former AT&T technician Mark Klein has come forward to support the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T for its alleged complicity in the NSA's electronic surveillance. Here, Wired News publishes Klein's public statement in its entirety.

My background:

For 22 and 1/2 years I worked as an AT&T technician, first in New York and then in California.

What I observed first-hand:

In 2002, when I was working in an AT&T office in San Francisco, the site manager told me to expect a visit from a National Security Agency agent, who was to interview a management-level technician for a special job. The agent came, and by chance I met him and directed him to the appropriate people.

In January 2003, I, along with others, toured the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco -- actually three floors of an SBC building. There I saw a new room being built adjacent to the 4ESS switch room where the public's phone calls are routed. I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room. The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room.

In October 2003, the company transferred me to the San Francisco building to oversee the Worldnet Internet room, which included large routers, racks of modems for customers' dial-in services, and other equipment. I was responsible for troubleshooting problems on the fiber optic circuits and installing new circuits.

While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal. I saw this in a design document available to me, entitled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated Dec. 10, 2002. I also saw design documents dated Jan. 13, 2004 and Jan. 24, 2003, which instructed technicians on connecting some of the already in-service circuits to the "splitter" cabinet, which diverts some of the light signal to the secret room. The circuits listed were the Peering Links, which connect Worldnet with other networks and hence the whole country, as well as the rest of the world.

One of the documents listed the equipment installed in the secret room, and this list included a Narus STA 6400, which is a "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". The Narus STA technology is known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets. The company's advertising boasts that its technology "captures comprehensive customer usage data ... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete visibility for all internet applications."

My job required me to connect new circuits to the "splitter" cabinet and get them up and running. While working on a particularly difficult one with a technician back East, I learned that other such "splitter" cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

What is the significance and why is it important to bring these facts to light?

Based on my understanding of the connections and equipment at issue, it appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data.

Given the public debate about the constitutionality of the Bush administration's spying on U.S. citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant, I think it is critical that this information be brought out into the open, and that the American people be told the truth about the extent of the administration's warrantless surveillance practices, particularly as it relates to the internet.

Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA. And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens.

See my sig.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not sure whether it's liberals standing on principle or just being so hardheaded they refuse to recognize it's possible that Obama sees the very same need that Bush saw regarding the surviellence issue. The main problem that confronts them is if they admit that Obama is right they'll passively acknowledge that Bush was right as well and I highly doubt that goes could be tolerated by any of the more rabid anti-Bush liberals at all. The fact that it's primarily the more rabid, anti-Bush liberals making all the noise about this makes me believe it's more about their own pride and ego than any facts or truth.

This.

The entire segment was one long rhetorical circle-jerk filled with wiretap-related catch-phrases and other emotional drivel that is completely devoid of the technical details required to debate this issue properly.

The unclassified descriptions of the program(s) in question are available, yet 99% of those who condemn the programs don't know jackshit about them, or SIGINT in general. All they need to hear is the word "wiretap," and they go batshit insane!

It's ridiculous.

The program(s) that Obama is continuing are 100% compliant with all previous FISC rulings and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

If you disagree, please be prepared to explain, in technical and legal detail, why that's not the case.

Sounds great.

Now my question. Do wiretaps which have at least one end of the communication in the USA require a warrant?

The first thing you'll need to do is define "wiretap."

For my purposes any communication which has at least one end in US territories, which would traditionally require a warrant to intercept, needs a warrant if it's a phone, data stream or whatever. Any means to intercept an electronic transmission would therefore qualify as a "wiretap".

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Glenn Greenwald's column today not only shows how liberal commentator after liberal commentator is doing what the right so consistently failed to do with Bush, but he eloquently makes the case for why it's important they do so and why they should in this case. Actually, eloquence takes the back seat to the blistering case.

I've previously commented that while nearly all of the right's claims of the left 'blindly' defending Obama for the same things they attacked Bush for are false, that one legitimate such claim was with a Keith Olbermann piece. Now, look at Olbermann go - he opens the second piece in the link with 'Obama is dead wrong'.

His guest speculates in a worrisome theory that Obama is doing this because he feels he has to appease the intelligence community to get their support.

Tonight, Olbermann will have the EFF on with a guest, and it'll likely be also worth watching.

Link to Greewald's commentary and Olbermann video segments.

I agree with what Olbermann is doing. The left wing (me included) can not and should not allow Obama to get away with doing whatever he wants. We need to keep him in check and let him know that we are his base and if he continues Bush policies that we denounced, he will lose our support.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not sure whether it's liberals standing on principle or just being so hardheaded they refuse to recognize it's possible that Obama sees the very same need that Bush saw regarding the surviellence issue. The main problem that confronts them is if they admit that Obama is right they'll passively acknowledge that Bush was right as well and I highly doubt that goes could be tolerated by any of the more rabid anti-Bush liberals at all. The fact that it's primarily the more rabid, anti-Bush liberals making all the noise about this makes me believe it's more about their own pride and ego than any facts or truth.

This.

The entire segment was one long rhetorical circle-jerk filled with wiretap-related catch-phrases and other emotional drivel that is completely devoid of the technical details required to debate this issue properly.

The unclassified descriptions of the program(s) in question are available, yet 99% of those who condemn the programs don't know jackshit about them, or SIGINT in general. All they need to hear is the word "wiretap," and they go batshit insane!

It's ridiculous.

The program(s) that Obama is continuing are 100% compliant with all previous FISC rulings and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

If you disagree, please be prepared to explain, in technical and legal detail, why that's not the case.

Sounds great.

Now my question. Do wiretaps which have at least one end of the communication in the USA require a warrant?

The first thing you'll need to do is define "wiretap."

For my purposes any communication which has at least one end in US territories, which would traditionally require a warrant to intercept, needs a warrant if it's a phone, data stream or whatever. Any means to intercept an electronic transmission would therefore qualify as a "wiretap".

So the content of the phone call is what you're concerned with, and having only one US person involved is enough to require a warrant, regardless of who or who may not be on the other end of the communication?

fair enough, I guess.

Is simply capturing the metadata on ALL phone calls acceptable to you? (#'s, duration, etc)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not sure whether it's liberals standing on principle or just being so hardheaded they refuse to recognize it's possible that Obama sees the very same need that Bush saw regarding the surviellence issue. The main problem that confronts them is if they admit that Obama is right they'll passively acknowledge that Bush was right as well and I highly doubt that goes could be tolerated by any of the more rabid anti-Bush liberals at all. The fact that it's primarily the more rabid, anti-Bush liberals making all the noise about this makes me believe it's more about their own pride and ego than any facts or truth.

This.

The entire segment was one long rhetorical circle-jerk filled with wiretap-related catch-phrases and other emotional drivel that is completely devoid of the technical details required to debate this issue properly.

The unclassified descriptions of the program(s) in question are available, yet 99% of those who condemn the programs don't know jackshit about them, or SIGINT in general. All they need to hear is the word "wiretap," and they go batshit insane!

It's ridiculous.

The program(s) that Obama is continuing are 100% compliant with all previous FISC rulings and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

If you disagree, please be prepared to explain, in technical and legal detail, why that's not the case.

Sounds great.

Now my question. Do wiretaps which have at least one end of the communication in the USA require a warrant?

The first thing you'll need to do is define "wiretap."

For my purposes any communication which has at least one end in US territories, which would traditionally require a warrant to intercept, needs a warrant if it's a phone, data stream or whatever. Any means to intercept an electronic transmission would therefore qualify as a "wiretap".

So the content of the phone call is what you're concerned with, and having only one US person involved is enough to require a warrant, regardless of who or who may not be on the other end of the communication?

fair enough, I guess.

Is simply capturing the metadata on ALL phone calls acceptable to you? (#'s, duration, etc)

I am somewhat familiar with how things get done. The content of the conversation is what's protected. I'm not so hard nose as to object to some sifting of data. Let's say that I made a dozen calls to a known terrorists phone number. In itself that doesn't make me a terrorist. I might be an honest businessman who doesn't know who I'm talking to. That does however raise eyebrows as it ought to. Time for a wiretap? No, not yet. If however it turns out that I'm calling several terrorists or if I'm engaged in a business which is suspect, then at some point it may.

So the agents apply for a warrant, and then commence their surveillance. Let's suppose for a moment though that there was reasonable grounds to believe that I might be engaging in something which requires immediate action. Then the agents commence the wiretaps immediately, then followup with the paperwork afterwords. I'm fine with that. Legitimate needs are accommodated in a timely way, yet the government is accountable to independent scrutiny.

I don't see where that's an unreasonable desire.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: Craig234
Glenn Greenwald's column today not only shows how liberal commentator after liberal commentator is doing what the right so consistently failed to do with Bush, but he eloquently makes the case for why it's important they do so and why they should in this case. Actually, eloquence takes the back seat to the blistering case.

I've previously commented that while nearly all of the right's claims of the left 'blindly' defending Obama for the same things they attacked Bush for are false, that one legitimate such claim was with a Keith Olbermann piece. Now, look at Olbermann go - he opens the second piece in the link with 'Obama is dead wrong'.

His guest speculates in a worrisome theory that Obama is doing this because he feels he has to appease the intelligence community to get their support.

Tonight, Olbermann will have the EFF on with a guest, and it'll likely be also worth watching.

Link to Greewald's commentary and Olbermann video segments.

I agree with what Olbermann is doing. The left wing (me included) can not and should not allow Obama to get away with doing whatever he wants. We need to keep him in check and let him know that we are his base and if he continues Bush policies that we denounced, he will lose our support.

Good to hear. So the facts are, we have pretty much a 100% rate of the liberals here agreeing with the many critics of Obama on this issue, in contrast to the right who acted as apologists for almost anythinng Bush did his first 6 years or so - constantly attacking any liberal crticis, without any rational argument, but with 'BDS' and 'Blame America First' type parroting. The amazing perversity of these people is that they can describe these facts as showing that it's the liberals who are not standing for principle and being apologists.

 

[Siddhartha]

If and when Mr Obama screws up, the media and critics will be all over him like a pack of wolves on a bleeding and limping doe. That is what they do for a living.

 

[chucky2]

The facts are when the liberals in here start spewing the vitriolic prose for Obama as they did for Bush, then the facts will be that liberals are holding Obama to the same standard as Bush.

Until that happens, the facts are you're doing the "That's just terrible dear, terrible..." while sipping your tea.

The facts are that, once your Messiah got to see the state of the world as it really exists, he sure didn't rush to "undo" all that the Ebil Bush has done.....quite interesting since Bush was supposedly an incompetent Satan...that the Messiah continues his work...funny that...

Quick, someone write a song about a puppy who's eager to protect the sheep, but doesn't believe in barking...because it disturbs the sheep. Then the puppy gets put on duty, and figures out the wolves are sneaky little bastards, and he can't be everywhere at once...hence needs to bark sometimes, even if it's annoying to the poor sheep. Should be easy for the musically artistic in here....

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2
The facts are when the liberals in here start spewing the vitriolic prose for Obama as they did for Bush, then the facts will be that liberals are holding Obama to the same standard as Bush.

Until that happens, the facts are you're doing the "That's just terrible dear, terrible..." while sipping your tea.

The facts are that, once your Messiah got to see the state of the world as it really exists, he sure didn't rush to "undo" all that the Ebil Bush has done.....quite interesting since Bush was supposedly an incompetent Satan...that the Messiah continues his work...funny that...

Quick, someone write a song about a puppy who's eager to protect the sheep, but doesn't believe in barking...because it disturbs the sheep. Then the puppy gets put on duty, and figures out the wolves are sneaky little bastards, and he can't be everywhere at once...hence needs to bark sometimes, even if it's annoying to the poor sheep. Should be easy for the musically artistic in here....

Chuck

The facts are, Obama is a hell of a lot better than Bush, and the liberals are responding with a mix of praise and criticism that matches how he's doing.

If he were as bad as Bush, we'd abandon him too.

It's you on the right who failed to choose well when you voted for Bush, and who were apologists for him, while you don't give Obama any credit he deserves.

The left is acting as they should, while you get it wrong on both sides.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

No, the "fcking morons" are those who believe that smokescreen because they're more comfortable with their ears tucked between their gulteal cheeks. For more enlightenment about what is actually being monitored, ask whistle blower, Mark Klein, the guy who actually installed the NSA's "Internet vacuum cleaner" in Room 641A of AT&T's Folsom Street headquarters in San Francisco.

Wiretap Whistle-Blower's Account
04.07.06
Former AT&T technician Mark Klein has come forward to support the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T for its alleged complicity in the NSA's electronic surveillance. Here, Wired News publishes Klein's public statement in its entirety.

My background:

For 22 and 1/2 years I worked as an AT&T technician, first in New York and then in California.

What I observed first-hand:

In 2002, when I was working in an AT&T office in San Francisco, the site manager told me to expect a visit from a National Security Agency agent, who was to interview a management-level technician for a special job. The agent came, and by chance I met him and directed him to the appropriate people.

In January 2003, I, along with others, toured the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco -- actually three floors of an SBC building. There I saw a new room being built adjacent to the 4ESS switch room where the public's phone calls are routed. I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room. The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room.

In October 2003, the company transferred me to the San Francisco building to oversee the Worldnet Internet room, which included large routers, racks of modems for customers' dial-in services, and other equipment. I was responsible for troubleshooting problems on the fiber optic circuits and installing new circuits.

While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal. I saw this in a design document available to me, entitled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated Dec. 10, 2002. I also saw design documents dated Jan. 13, 2004 and Jan. 24, 2003, which instructed technicians on connecting some of the already in-service circuits to the "splitter" cabinet, which diverts some of the light signal to the secret room. The circuits listed were the Peering Links, which connect Worldnet with other networks and hence the whole country, as well as the rest of the world.

One of the documents listed the equipment installed in the secret room, and this list included a Narus STA 6400, which is a "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". The Narus STA technology is known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets. The company's advertising boasts that its technology "captures comprehensive customer usage data ... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete visibility for all internet applications."

My job required me to connect new circuits to the "splitter" cabinet and get them up and running. While working on a particularly difficult one with a technician back East, I learned that other such "splitter" cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

What is the significance and why is it important to bring these facts to light?

Based on my understanding of the connections and equipment at issue, it appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data.

Given the public debate about the constitutionality of the Bush administration's spying on U.S. citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant, I think it is critical that this information be brought out into the open, and that the American people be told the truth about the extent of the administration's warrantless surveillance practices, particularly as it relates to the internet.

Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA. And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens.

See my sig.

1) You never addressed the five safeguards that the FISC ruled were in place at NSA.
2) You are basing your conclusion off of spying from April, 2006 when we knew that Bush's now defunct TSP was illegally spying on Americans. The past and current environment never approved of such behavior.
3) You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between FISA 2008 and TSP which the FISC court ruling clearly defines as what is legal and illegal via the Fourth Amendment. This is even after linking the thread in the thread in your sig (irony).
4) I would recommend that you reread my posts about FISC, reread the thread you linked in your sig, and research FISA 2008 and what is deemed legal and illegal.

I'll even make it very easy for you: wiretapping domestic chatter is a thing of the past, i.e. Bush admin and TSP. This program does not exist anymore. Obama isn't, and never did advocate that. He supports FISA 2008 which clearly states that it's legal to wiretap any American who feels the need to communicate about national security with a foreign entity. FISA 2008 is validated by the FISC court ruling from last August, read it, memorize it, and debate the ruling if you're going to be productive. Back to the topic: in order for the wiretap to happen, five triggers need to be activated before it is escalated to the wiretap level. If you activate the five triggers in place then you absolutely deserve to be wiretapped because you are now a realized threat to this country. It's that simple. We have more personal rights than we've ever had due to the FISC ruling clarifying what can and what cannot violate the Fourth Amendment. If you disagree with the courts and 2/3's of Congress then that's your problem, you are in the minority.