Obama adopts Bush policy on wire taps

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[ ... ]
Final verdict: Obama admin is right to dismiss this case. ...

As with palehorse, this is where you completely miss the point. You are not qualified or empowered to declare a verdict. That is the role of the courts. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the courts, something several of you just don't seem to understand. Taking this to court is NOT a declaration of wrong-doing, it is the American process for determining IF there was wrong-doing.

My "verdict" is my opinion, I'm not a court. However, I have the ability to look at the information unbiased. Show me specifically where telecom's compliance has ever been illegal by the courts? You can't because it doesn't exist, and you are wrong on this issue, mainly because it's already been settled by the courts as legal three decades ago. If you read DaveS's posts from the link we wouldn't even be having the discussion on whether there was any wrongdoing in telecom's compliance with the NSA (the very issue of Jewel vs NSA):

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant, no matter where the collection occurs. The longstanding Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979), allows for the collection and examination of communications metadata, i.e., "to" and "from" information, without a warrant. The FISC ruling explicitly finds legal such collection under the now-sunset Protect America Act and, thus, the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

In order to determine which traffic content may be collected for foreign intelligence purposes, the traffic metadata must be examined. Even when a target in question is a specific non-US Person of foreign intelligence interest, traffic metadata must first be examined in order to target that person! Because examining traffic metadata was found explicitly legal and Constitutional three decades ago by the United States Supreme Court, doing so in order to target legitimate foreign intelligence collection is allowable under the law.

Congress has already sided with these rulings with FISA 2008, what more evidence do you need that another court needs to rule on this case and go against Congress and the Supreme Court? That would make the Obama admin look stupid to take this case because it's already water under the bridge and it's been settled. The EFF is trying to further their radical cause with this case but luckily the courts won't take them seriously (and shouldn't). You may not agree with all these precedents/laws/rulings and think it's wrong but that's something you need to deal with, there's a 66% chance that the Congressman you voted for, voted for FISA 2008 which renders this topic moot.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
palehorse

What exactly is so onerous about getting a warrant after the fact from the FISA court? Why the shroud of secrecy?

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about...

1. Metadata capture does not require a FISA warrant, has not required such a warrant for 30+ years, nor should it require one in the future.

2. What leads you to believe that content-monitoring programs do not require FISA warrants before or after the fact? FISA 2008 addressed that very issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[ ... ]
Final verdict: Obama admin is right to dismiss this case. ...

As with palehorse, this is where you completely miss the point. You are not qualified or empowered to declare a verdict. That is the role of the courts. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the courts, something several of you just don't seem to understand. Taking this to court is NOT a declaration of wrong-doing, it is the American process for determining IF there was wrong-doing.

Why object to Demon's judgment on the subject, but not those of the dozens of other posters here who are running around calling the programs illegal, and Bush or Obama criminals? I must have missed the part where you berated each of them for not being "qualified or empowered to declare a verdict."

Another deflection attempt. Predictable.

My time and attention is finite, just as yours is. I set priorities in what I choose to respond to, just as you do. I suggest you address the points raised, specifically those exposing the fallacies in your arguments, instead of constantly trying to change the subject.

1. People do not understand the very basics of the program(s) involved. It's very difficult to discuss intelligence policy with people who don't even care to understand those basics.

2. People instantly fly off the deep end -- kneejerk -- every time they see or hear the words "wiretap." Paranoia rules the day.

True enough, though this applies equally to both sides. There is a comparable contingent of uninformed folks whose knee-jerk response is blind support for anything that purportedly helps combat terrorism, regardless of actual merit. Once again, this is a deflection attempt that has nothing to do with the points raised earlier.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[ ... ]
Final verdict: Obama admin is right to dismiss this case. ...

As with palehorse, this is where you completely miss the point. You are not qualified or empowered to declare a verdict. That is the role of the courts. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the courts, something several of you just don't seem to understand. Taking this to court is NOT a declaration of wrong-doing, it is the American process for determining IF there was wrong-doing.

My "verdict" is my opinion, I'm not a court. However, I have the ability to look at the information unbiased. Show me specifically where telecom's compliance has ever been illegal by the courts? You can't because it doesn't exist, and you are wrong on this issue, mainly because it's already been settled by the courts as legal three decades ago. If you read DaveS's posts from the link we wouldn't even be having the discussion on whether there was any wrongdoing in telecom's compliance with the NSA (the very issue of Jewel vs NSA):

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant, no matter where the collection occurs. The longstanding Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979), allows for the collection and examination of communications metadata, i.e., "to" and "from" information, without a warrant. The FISC ruling explicitly finds legal such collection under the now-sunset Protect America Act and, thus, the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

In order to determine which traffic content may be collected for foreign intelligence purposes, the traffic metadata must be examined. Even when a target in question is a specific non-US Person of foreign intelligence interest, traffic metadata must first be examined in order to target that person! Because examining traffic metadata was found explicitly legal and Constitutional three decades ago by the United States Supreme Court, doing so in order to target legitimate foreign intelligence collection is allowable under the law.

Congress has already sided with these rulings with FISA 2008, what more evidence do you need that another court needs to rule on this case and go against Congress and the Supreme Court? That would make the Obama admin look stupid to take this case because it's already water under the bridge and it's been settled. The EFF is trying to further their radical cause with this case but luckily the courts won't take them seriously (and shouldn't). You may not agree with all these precedents/laws/rulings and think it's wrong but that's something you need to deal with, there's a 66% chance that the Congressman you voted for, voted for FISA 2008 which renders this topic moot.

The courts do not always agree with Congress. It would not be the first time Congress has done something which is later ruled unconstitutional. To be clear, I am not stating this program is, in fact, unconstitutional. I am just reiterating my original point that this is the purpose of going to court, to determine whether specific actions are or are not legal. The courts play a crucial role in preserving the checks and balances with Congress and the executive branch.

I would also point out that there is often a difference between what a program is authorized to do, and what is actually be done under the guise of the program. Even if this program and similar programs are, in fact, constitutional, it does not prove that all of the activities actually performed fall within the programs' constraints. Once again, that is the purpose of the courts, to review what has actually been done.

Finally, the government claim that this and other current programs are legally comparable to those approved by the Supreme Court 30 years ago is untested and inconclusive. Not only do times change, but the claim itself comes from those with a vested interest in presuming they are legal. Perhaps they are right, but once again, that is the purpose of judicial review, to validate such claims.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, I am extremely disappointed in Obama on this issue. Hopefully the EFF and ACLU will make progress fighting this in the courts, because it doesn't look like any meaningful change is going to come from the new administration.

Me too. Obama didn't do this right.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

His posts were well written, but relied on a whole bunch of absolutely silly principles. Things like 'all of this rested on legal opinions put out by the DOJ'. Well, under Bush torture was also legal, resting on legal opinions his administration released. Who gives a shit?

Not only that, but he focuses on the metadata argument of a single person ignoring the fact that the Bush administration clearly decided that FISA and other current (and related) wiretapping statutory authority was insufficient for what they were trying to do. (and the fact that outside of the metadata argument there are still dozens if not hundreds of people that were literally wiretapped without warrants like the members of Al-Haramain who actually had phone logs detailing the warrantless wiretaps delivered to them. Whoops!) When challenged on this legally, they didn't state to the courts 'what we are doing is legal already under current established statute' they said 'the statutes that constrain us are unconstitutional and we won't obey them'. It would require a truly insane person to attempt to declare laws invalid that you weren't in conflict with anyway.

Not to mention that, while resting on the same information, reams and reams and reams of legal authorities, all of them far more knowledgeable about wiretapping law than we are, have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the program was almost certainly illegal. (there are some exceptions to this) I guess all those damn Bush hating lawyers like the American Bar Association were just having a circular kneejerk too, huh?

 

[Xellos2099]

Maybe Obama use this plan bwcause it is a good and effective plan?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The courts do not always agree with Congress. It would not be the first time Congress has done something which is later ruled unconstitutional. To be clear, I am not stating this program is, in fact, unconstitutional. I am just reiterating my original point that this is the purpose of going to court, to determine whether specific actions are or are not legal. The courts play a crucial role in preserving the checks and balances with Congress and the executive branch.

I would also point out that there is often a difference between what a program is authorized to do, and what is actually be done under the guise of the program. Even if this program and similar programs are, in fact, constitutional, it does not prove that all of the activities actually performed fall within the programs' constraints. Once again, that is the purpose of the courts, to review what has actually been done.

Finally, the government claim that this and other current programs are legally comparable to those approved by the Supreme Court 30 years ago is untested and inconclusive. Not only do times change, but the claim itself comes from those with a vested interest in presuming they are legal. Perhaps they are right, but once again, that is the purpose of judicial review, to validate such claims.

In this case, however, you fail to realize (or just didn't read the link above) that Congress agreed with the courts which led us to FISA 2008. Not only on the 30 year old Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979), but also the August 22nd, 2008 ruling by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) of Review which states at the end of page 3:

"As framed, the petition presents matters of both first impression and constitutional significance. At its most elemental level, the petition requires us to weigh the nation's security interests against the Fourth Amendment privacy interests of United States persons.

After a careful calibration of this balance and consideration of the myriad of legal issues presented, we affirm the lower court's determinations that the directives at issue are lawful and that compliance with them is obligatory.

then starting at the bottom of page 16 through 18:

Under this analysis, the surveillances authorized by the directives easily pass muster. Their stated purpose centers on garnering foreign intelligence. There is no indication that the collections of information are primarily related to ordinary criminal-law enforcement purposes. Without something more than a purely speculative set of imaginings, we cannot infer that the purpose of the directives (and thus, of the surveillances) is other than their stated purpose. [cut out example of case]

We add, moreover, that there is a high degree of probability that requiring a warrant would hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake. [cut out example of case] Compulsory compliance with the warrant requirement would introduce an element of delay, thus frustrating the government's ability to collect information in a timely manner. [redacted text]

For these reasons, we hold that a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

3. Reasonableness. This holding does not grant the government carte blanche: even though the foreign intelligence exception applies in a given case, governmental action intruding on individual privacy interests must comport with the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. [cut out example of case] Thus, the question here reduces to whether the PAA [Protect America Act of 2007], as applied through the directives, constitutes a sufficiently reasonable exercise of governmental power to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

[onto page 21 - top of page 22] The government rejoins that the PAA, as applied here, constitutes reasonable governmental action. It emphasizes both the protections spelled out in the PAA itself and those mandated under the certifications and directives. 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.

The record supports the government. Notwithstanding the parade of horribles trotted out by the petitioner, it has presented no evidence of actual harm, any egregious risk of error, or any broad potential for abuse in the circumstances of the instant case. Thus, assessing the intrusions at issue in light of the governmental interest at stake and the panoply of protections that are in place, we discern no principled basis for invalidating the PAA as applied here. In the pages that follow, we explain our reasoning.

This ruling is why the Obama admin isn't going to revisit the Jewel v NSA, to reiterate: It would make them look stupid to try to undermine this previous ruling as well as Congress's FISA 2008. Make sense?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

His posts were well written, but relied on a whole bunch of absolutely silly principles. Things like 'all of this rested on legal opinions put out by the DOJ'. Well, under Bush torture was also legal, resting on legal opinions his administration released. Who gives a shit?

Not only that, but he focuses on the metadata argument of a single person ignoring the fact that the Bush administration clearly decided that FISA and other current (and related) wiretapping statutory authority was insufficient for what they were trying to do. (and the fact that outside of the metadata argument there are still dozens if not hundreds of people that were literally wiretapped without warrants like the members of Al-Haramain who actually had phone logs detailing the warrantless wiretaps delivered to them. Whoops!) When challenged on this legally, they didn't state to the courts 'what we are doing is legal already under current established statute' they said 'the statutes that constrain us are unconstitutional and we won't obey them'. It would require a truly insane person to attempt to declare laws invalid that you weren't in conflict with anyway.

Not to mention that, while resting on the same information, reams and reams and reams of legal authorities, all of them far more knowledgeable about wiretapping law than we are, have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the program was almost certainly illegal. (there are some exceptions to this) I guess all those damn Bush hating lawyers like the American Bar Association were just having a circular kneejerk too, huh?

If the ABA was right, why did the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) rule otherwise last August? (See my post above this). Why did Congress, in conjunction with FISC, pass FISA 2008 which granted immunity to telecoms? Did you agree with FISA 2008 that Obama supported? Why is it surprising to you that Obama's admin upheld the FISC ruling and Congress's FISA 2008 by not taking this stupid case involving telecoms' compliance?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
palehorse, I searched and bit and didn't find anything (there are a lot of threads on this subject, some of them pretty big). Could you maybe help point me to the explanation you mentioned earlier? Do you happen to remember the name of the member who posted it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2269639&enterthread=y

Read every post in that thread by daveschroeder, and you'll begin to understand why this entire thread is nothing more than one large circular kneejerk. His posts in that thread were some of the most articulate and factual posts in the history of this forum. Reading each and every one of his posts may take a while, but it's more than worth it... that is, if you truly wish to understand this issue as much as any unclassified discussion will allow.

enjoy.

His posts were well written, but relied on a whole bunch of absolutely silly principles. Things like 'all of this rested on legal opinions put out by the DOJ'. Well, under Bush torture was also legal, resting on legal opinions his administration released. Who gives a shit?

Not only that, but he focuses on the metadata argument of a single person ignoring the fact that the Bush administration clearly decided that FISA and other current (and related) wiretapping statutory authority was insufficient for what they were trying to do. (and the fact that outside of the metadata argument there are still dozens if not hundreds of people that were literally wiretapped without warrants like the members of Al-Haramain who actually had phone logs detailing the warrantless wiretaps delivered to them. Whoops!) When challenged on this legally, they didn't state to the courts 'what we are doing is legal already under current established statute' they said 'the statutes that constrain us are unconstitutional and we won't obey them'. It would require a truly insane person to attempt to declare laws invalid that you weren't in conflict with anyway.

Not to mention that, while resting on the same information, reams and reams and reams of legal authorities, all of them far more knowledgeable about wiretapping law than we are, have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the program was almost certainly illegal. (there are some exceptions to this) I guess all those damn Bush hating lawyers like the American Bar Association were just having a circular kneejerk too, huh?

If the ABA was right, why did the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) rule otherwise last August? (See my post above this). Why did Congress, in conjunction with FISC, pass FISA 2008 which granted immunity to telecoms? Did you agree with FISA 2008 that Obama supported? Why is it surprising to you that Obama's admin upheld the FISC ruling and Congress's FISA 2008 by not taking this stupid case involving telecoms' compliance?

Well we don't know exactly what FISC ruled on first of all, and we don't know if/when/how the program has been changed since its inception. (not to mention what other programs have not been ruled on at all) Congress passing a new law has absolutely nothing to do with if what Bush was doing before was legal or not. I do not agree with the FISA of 2008 that Obama supported, and I never said it was surprising to me that Obama's administration has taken the same tack as the Bush administration, in fact I have repeatedly stated in other threads that I fully expected it. I also do not support any sort of immunity for the telecom companies whatsoever, they should be held fully liable if they broke the law. It is disappointing, but hardly surprising. Power once taken is very rarely voluntarily given back.

I think you have me confused with some sort of caricature.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well we don't know exactly what FISC ruled on first of all, and we don't know if/when/how the program has been changed since its inception. (not to mention what other programs have not been ruled on at all) Congress passing a new law has absolutely nothing to do with if what Bush was doing before was legal or not. I do not agree with the FISA of 2008 that Obama supported, and I never said it was surprising to me that Obama's administration has taken the same tack as the Bush administration, in fact I have repeatedly stated in other threads that I fully expected it. I also do not support any sort of immunity for the telecom companies whatsoever, they should be held fully liable if they broke the law. It is disappointing, but hardly surprising. Power once taken is very rarely voluntarily given back.

What do you mean, you don't know exactly what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled? It was cut and dried. Just a simple Google search shows that the article is easy to find and decipher by news sites:

Friday, January 16, 2009

Surveillance court rules US could compel telecom to assist wiretapping
Lucas Tanglen at 8:52 AM ET

[JURIST] The US federal government acted within the Constitution when it compelled a telecommunications company to assist in warrantless surveillance of certain customers, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISC) said in a ruling released Thursday. The redacted decision, dated August 22, 2008, was a response to the unnamed firm's challenge to government demands made under the since-expired Protect America Act (PAA). The court asserted a national security exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for surveillance "directed at a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The court also rejected an argument that the government failed to comply with the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, finding sufficient safeguards in the Attorney General's finding of probable cause and a 90-day limit on surveillance. The court stressed that it was ruling on the particulars of the case:

[W]e caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power. Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individual against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is pleased with the decision. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the government should not be allowed to nullify Fourth Amendment rights merely by invoking national security, but was encouraged by the court's recognition of the importance of probable cause in such surveillance.

My post a few back went into more detail into the ruling. What official law did telecom's break? None, just as this ruling affirms.

The Bush and expired TSP program was a different case than this one. However, this ruling can apply to the TSP program as well. IF the persons of interest were communicating with foreign entities/individuals and posed a threat to our national security, then and only then would this apply over the Fourth Amendment but have to also show reasonableness on the five safeguard components listed by FISC in the ruling (under Reasonableness). We'll never know if and why those 100 Americans were wiretapped and if the safeguards also applied to the now defunct TSP program.

Ok, it's your opinion to disagree with the President, Congress, and FISC but just realize that your opinion is uninformed (as is mine). The evidence clearly shows and states that telecoms didn't break the law, hence their granted immunity by Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

My post a few back went into more detail into the ruling. What official law did telecom's break? None, just as this ruling affirms.

The Bush and expired TSP program was a different case than this one. However, this ruling can apply to the TSP program as well. IF the persons of interest were communicating with foreign entities/individuals and posed a threat to our national security, then and only then would this apply over the Fourth Amendment but have to also show reasonableness on the five safeguard components listed by FISC in the ruling (under Reasonableness). We'll never know if and why those 100 Americans were wiretapped and if the safeguards also applied to the now defunct TSP program.

Ok, it's your opinion to disagree with the President, Congress, and FISC but just realize that your opinion is uninformed (as is mine). The evidence clearly shows and states that telecoms didn't break the law, hence their granted immunity by Congress.

Wait what.

The telecoms were granted immunity from liability because they didn't break the law? If they didn't break the law they weren't liable anyway, thus rendering immunity unnecessary.

My head is spinning.

We actually do know when and if certain Americans were wiretapped, such as the members of the al-Haramain Foundation who were mistakenly given classified phone records by the FBI that clearly showed them being warrantlessly wiretapped. My entire point is that the Bush administration acted lawlessly, outside of the purview of the legislature and the courts. If you want to wiretap people the way Bush was doing it that's all well and good, but get Congress to pass a law allowing you to do it, don't just throw out the ones you don't like.

My gripe has very little to do with the violations of the 4th amendment, it is far more with the unilateral assertions of vast, unchecked executive power.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
if there was no wrong doing then there wouldn't have been such a huge legal bruhaha over telecomm community.

sorry kids. face facts.

There is, was, and always has been, more than one program that the knee-jerkers, such as yourself, refer to by the all-inclusive, and technically inaccurate, "wiretap program."

"The media is saying it's a big deal, so there must be something illegal going on!!111" :roll:

I can guarantee that you know next to nothing about SIGINT... get educated, then speak.

Sorry honey, but what you're just not getting is that your assertions count for squat. In spite of all your condescending posturing and pontificating, YOU are just another anonymous keyboard commando. Your personal opinions may be interesting, but they are not a substitute for an informed review by a court of law. That is the point, not your straw man arguments about "knee-jerker" presumptions of illegality.

If this program and other, related programs do not violate Americans' civil liberties, neither Bush nor Obama should fear legal review. (Remember, "If you have nothing to hide ...") Legal checks and balances are one of the most fundamental protections we have against government wrong-doing, something such a loudly self-proclaimed patriot like yourself should be defending with all your red, white, and blue heart. And kindly don't insult us with the red herring about state secrets. Courts can and regularly do review all sorts of sensitive information without compromising it. Such a review could clear the air ... if, in fact, the program's scope has been as limited as it claims, and no over-zealous cowboys have taken it upon themselves to expand it. The government's continuing obstruction of the case simply raises suspicions of abuse and undermines Obama's promises of transparency. That's why there's an uproar.

Well said Bowfinger.

I don't need to know anything about Sigint PH. Obviously you think you know too much. You are too close to the issue you fail to see that the answers do not lie in the makeup of whatever programs were/are in place...the answers lie in the legal system that is built around said programs.

And legally speaking, there was a shitstorm several months ago when the Telecomms were browning their shorts over not having immunity from lawsuits over the wiretapping programs in question.

It all goes back to..... "if you have nothing to hide..."

This is no kneejerk reaction...its common friggin sense. And since the government has been very unwilling to cooperate in any sort of review...people with common sense are left to wonder just exactly what happened with these programs.

Of course people like you ( Or people who claim to be in the know) just want us to trust you. Hell no.

 

[sapiens74]

Maybe just maybe, once he was briefed on everything he came to the same conclusion as Bush

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

My post a few back went into more detail into the ruling. What official law did telecom's break? None, just as this ruling affirms.

The Bush and expired TSP program was a different case than this one. However, this ruling can apply to the TSP program as well. IF the persons of interest were communicating with foreign entities/individuals and posed a threat to our national security, then and only then would this apply over the Fourth Amendment but have to also show reasonableness on the five safeguard components listed by FISC in the ruling (under Reasonableness). We'll never know if and why those 100 Americans were wiretapped and if the safeguards also applied to the now defunct TSP program.

Ok, it's your opinion to disagree with the President, Congress, and FISC but just realize that your opinion is uninformed (as is mine). The evidence clearly shows and states that telecoms didn't break the law, hence their granted immunity by Congress.

Wait what.

The telecoms were granted immunity from liability because they didn't break the law? If they didn't break the law they weren't liable anyway, thus rendering immunity unnecessary.

My head is spinning.

We actually do know when and if certain Americans were wiretapped, such as the members of the al-Haramain Foundation who were mistakenly given classified phone records by the FBI that clearly showed them being warrantlessly wiretapped. My entire point is that the Bush administration acted lawlessly, outside of the purview of the legislature and the courts. If you want to wiretap people the way Bush was doing it that's all well and good, but get Congress to pass a law allowing you to do it, don't just throw out the ones you don't like.

My gripe has very little to do with the violations of the 4th amendment, it is far more with the unilateral assertions of vast, unchecked executive power.

I meant retroactive immunity from frivolous lawsuits like the one in the OP that seeks to condemn the government (NSA). It shows that courts take matters of national security seriously and won't retroactively allow any similar trial of government agencies or telecoms that complied. You act like safeguards weren't in place to prevent "vast, unchecked executive power" of illegal wiretapping when the court proceedings from last August say otherwise. Your example of the al-Haramain case could have been technically illegal at the time (excluding Article II grey areas which it would be legal under) but it's legal now:

The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury had already banned various branches of this organization at various times, including the US branch on 9 September 2004[2]. Under various names it had branches in Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Tanzania, and the USA.[1]

The American branches of this foundation were in Ashland, Oregon and Springfield, Missouri. Two directors of those branches, Suliman Al-Buthe ( ?????? ?????? ) and Aqeel Abdul Aziz Al-Aqil ( ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ), are now personally embargoed worldwide by the UN.[1]

If any of these men had communication with any of the international branches then the NSA had a right to wiretap them if they were deemed a threat to national security. Without a warrant at the time it could have been a violation of their 4th Amendment rights but Bush could have easily said he authorized it using Article II powers. Still a grey area, and I'm glad the NSA won't need a warrant in the present for people like this (ties to AQ).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Finally, the government claim that this and other current programs are legally comparable to those approved by the Supreme Court 30 years ago is untested and inconclusive. Not only do times change, but the claim itself comes from those with a vested interest in presuming they are legal. Perhaps they are right, but once again, that is the purpose of judicial review, to validate such claims.

There is no presumption in this case. FISA was modified accordingly -- modernized -- and passed again in 2008 for that very reason.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
His posts were well written, but relied on a whole bunch of absolutely silly principles. Things like 'all of this rested on legal opinions put out by the DOJ'. Well, under Bush torture was also legal, resting on legal opinions his administration released. Who gives a shit?

Not only that, but he focuses on the metadata argument of a single person ignoring the fact that the Bush administration clearly decided that FISA and other current (and related) wiretapping statutory authority was insufficient for what they were trying to do. (and the fact that outside of the metadata argument there are still dozens if not hundreds of people that were literally wiretapped without warrants like the members of Al-Haramain who actually had phone logs detailing the warrantless wiretaps delivered to them. Whoops!) When challenged on this legally, they didn't state to the courts 'what we are doing is legal already under current established statute' they said 'the statutes that constrain us are unconstitutional and we won't obey them'. It would require a truly insane person to attempt to declare laws invalid that you weren't in conflict with anyway.

Not to mention that, while resting on the same information, reams and reams and reams of legal authorities, all of them far more knowledgeable about wiretapping law than we are, have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the program was almost certainly illegal. (there are some exceptions to this) I guess all those damn Bush hating lawyers like the American Bar Association were just having a circular kneejerk too, huh?

Are you referring to the TSP specifically? That is the only occasion that comes to mind that fits each of your allegations.

Obama has not adopted any version of the TSP -- which, if you'll recall, is the point of this thread -- Obama -- hence, my references above to the "program(s) in question."

Originally posted by: OrByte
I don't need to know anything about Sigint PH. Obviously you think you know too much. You are too close to the issue you fail to see that the answers do not lie in the makeup of whatever programs were/are in place...the answers lie in the legal system that is built around said programs.

And legally speaking, there was a shitstorm several months ago when the Telecomms were browning their shorts over not having immunity from lawsuits over the wiretapping programs in question.

It all goes back to..... "if you have nothing to hide..."

This is no kneejerk reaction...its common friggin sense. And since the government has been very unwilling to cooperate in any sort of review...people with common sense are left to wonder just exactly what happened with these programs.

Of course people like you ( Or people who claim to be in the know) just want us to trust you. Hell no.

it is a kneejerk reaction, for one reason -- that is, everyone who is overreacting to Obama adopting "Bush's wiretapping" is assuming that Obama has decided to continue all of the various programs that were in place at any time during Bush's administration. The truth is, however, that Obama is not doing that. In fact, he is only continuing Bush's use of very specific programs that have already been deemed constitutional and legal by FISC and Congress itself.

Obama is not bringing back the TSP, or any version thereof.

The government -- Intelligence Community and Executive Branch -- have cooperated with everyone they need to cooperate with on this issue. Congress and our courts are well aware of the program(s) Obama has decided to continue, and all of the proper judgments of said program(s) have already been made.

Much of what you cosnider shady, or questionable, was already addressed last year when FISA 2008 was in the works. The remaining "grey areas" relate mostly to Presidential Article II authority, for which I would welcome a thorough review in the courts; but, the outcome of which would have very little to do with the current "wiretap" program(s) being continued by Obama.

So yes, many knees are still jerking... but, that's only because Joe Sixpack does not know or understand the program(s) themselves, prior rulings, or legislation involved.

Please remember that my main point here is to defend the legality and constitutionality of the program(s) referred to in the OP as they relate to the Obama administration. As it stands, the program(s) Obama is continuing are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse
As it stands, the program(s) Obama is continuing are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

Speaking about changing the rules after the game has already started?

Because that's how I remember how this all played out.

The admin got in trouble, everyone cooperated to CYA each other, and now this is where we are. People did what they needed to do to stonewall the congressional and judicial process/investigations.

I agree that the programs as they exist now are legal and follow constitutionality. I question whether that was always the case. And if not, why no repercussions?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse
As it stands, the program(s) Obama is continuing are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

Speaking about changing the rules after the game has already started?

Because that's how I remember how this all played out.

The admin got in trouble, everyone cooperated to CYA each other, and now this is where we are. People did what they needed to do to stonewall the congressional and judicial process/investigations.

I agree that the programs as they exist now are legal and follow constitutionality. I question whether that was always the case. And if not, why no repercussions?

When did this turn into a case of investigating previous administrations and their crimes?

The knee-jerking I've been talking about here has to do with Obama, and his continuation of legal and constitutional program(s). Please see the title of the thread...

That said, my grandfather used to smuggle moonshine during the prohibition... would you like to put him on trial for it?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse
When did this turn into a case of investigating previous administrations and their crimes?

The knee-jerking I've been talking about here has to do with Obama, and his continuation of legal and constitutional program(s). Please see the title of the thread ...

Say what? Did you even read the first sentence of the article?

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

This case was filed in 2008, about activities that occurred during and with the approval of the Bush administration.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse
As it stands, the program(s) Obama is continuing are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

Speaking about changing the rules after the game has already started?

Because that's how I remember how this all played out.

The admin got in trouble, everyone cooperated to CYA each other, and now this is where we are. People did what they needed to do to stonewall the congressional and judicial process/investigations.

I agree that the programs as they exist now are legal and follow constitutionality. I question whether that was always the case. And if not, why no repercussions?

When did this turn into a case of investigating previous administrations and their crimes?

The knee-jerking I've been talking about here has to do with Obama, and his continuation of legal and constitutional program(s). Please see the title of the thread...

That said, my grandfather used to smuggle moonshine during the prohibition... would you like to put him on trial for it?

don't divert.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Finally, the government claim that this and other current programs are legally comparable to those approved by the Supreme Court 30 years ago is untested and inconclusive. Not only do times change, but the claim itself comes from those with a vested interest in presuming they are legal. Perhaps they are right, but once again, that is the purpose of judicial review, to validate such claims.

There is no presumption in this case. FISA was modified accordingly -- modernized -- and passed again in 2008 for that very reason.

And as I already pointed out, this wouldn't be the first time the courts determined Congress passed something that was unconstitutional. Until this legislation passes judicial review, it is, in fact, merely presumed to be constitutional.

[ ... ]
Please remember that my main point here is to defend the legality and constitutionality of the program(s) referred to in the OP as they relate to the Obama administration. As it stands, the program(s) Obama is continuing are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

That remains merely your opinion, not an adjudicated fact. Allowing this case to proceed might help clear the air and provide some of the transparency Obama promised. That is the real point.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse

As it stands, the program(s) Obama is continuing are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

As it stands, I believe you're dead ass wrong. Many aspects of the programs clearly violate the Constitution, no matter what chickenshit concessions Congress or anyone else tries to make to weasel around the issue. That's not just my opionion. It's the opinion of a number of Constitutional scholars. Here's a transcript of George Washington University law professor, Jonathan Turley on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown," yesterday.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Lots of ways to phrase this question. Well, we put it the simple way. The Obama administration is just flat-out dead wrong about this, correct?

TURLEY: I think they are. I think that right now the Bush people are bringing out their ?mission accomplished? sign, because they?ve not only gotten Obama to protect Bush and Cheney and others from any criminal investigation on torture, but he is now going even further than they did in the protection of unlawful surveillance. And so, this is the ultimate victory for the Bush officials. They have Barack Obama adopting the same extremist arguments and, in fact, exceeding the extremist arguments made by President Bush.

OLBERMANN: The legal merits of this argument ?sovereign immunity,? ?the government can never be sued unless there is willful disclosure of intelligence information.? In other words, when they spied on you, if they don?t use it, there?s no?there?s no legal action?which I think, in layman?s terms would be, ?I could go and steal your money. If I don?t spend it, I?m not guilty of anything.? The argument has just landed on your desk as a term paper and you say what?

(LAUGHTER)

TURLEY: I think that this is why we allow students to submit papers early so that we can do initial reviews. You know, I was actually counsel in the Area 51 case, the Kasza case that decided in this controversy. I can tell you, this is a breathtaking claim. It is far beyond anything that we dealt with in Kasza.

It is true that the original rule is no one could sue the king. And so, the government had to waive sovereign immunity. But before this case, it was assumed that you could sue these government agencies.

And the law that they?re discussing, that it was really to protect these telecom companies. As you know, Senator Obama, when he was a senator, voted for it. It was greatly controversial. In my view, it was a terrible vote.

But now, they are arguing it doesn?t just shield these telecommunication companies it shields the government itself. And so, that leaves citizens with a right without any protection. And it is impossible to have a constitutional right that can never be enforced and that?s what we have here. It?s a terrible moment, I think, for many people.

But you cannot any longer suggest that President Obama is advancing the civil liberties and the privacy interest that he promised to advance. This is a terrible rollback. It?s a terrible decision.

And the Obama people seem to be arguing that?well, the Bush people were bad people doing bad things. But you know what? It doesn?t matter if you are a good person doing bad things. You are doing bad things. And that?s what this is.

OLBERMANN: You noted Obama as senator. There was Obama as candidate. There was also Obama as former teacher, professor on your area of expertise, constitutional law. How do you reconcile that man with a president who has a Justice Department that has produced this motion to dismiss in this case?

TURLEY: Well, I must say, I have a fairly harsh view. I really do have a lot of respect for President Obama.

But there are plenty of constitutional professors that are what I call ?constitutional relativists,? that they believe that the Constitution is very, very fluid. I don?t. I believe the Constitution?s core principles like privacy, like the Fourth Amendment. And you can?t start compromising on those things for political convenience.

The fact is, our president, I think, is more interested in programs than principles. And he never intended to fight on issues like torture and electronic surveillance. And we are going to have to come to grips to that.

And the people that support him in many different ways are going to have to come to grips and to tell the president they will not support him here, and they will not let him eviscerate privacy because of some cult of personality where he is so popular, he can do anything.

He can?t do this, because what he?s frittering away are the rights that we all have as citizens.

OLBERMANN: Well said. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University?great thanks for your time, Jon.

It's an opinion shared by one of my sisters, a California Appelate Court judge, and some of her friends with whom I've discussed this.

Originally posted by: palehorse

When did this turn into a case of investigating previous administrations and their crimes?

When the EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals first shredded the Constitution and started spying on American citizens. Those traitorous turds deserve years of quality time in cells at Guantanamo. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

I meant retroactive immunity from frivolous lawsuits like the one in the OP that seeks to condemn the government (NSA). It shows that courts take matters of national security seriously and won't retroactively allow any similar trial of government agencies or telecoms that complied. You act like safeguards weren't in place to prevent "vast, unchecked executive power" of illegal wiretapping when the court proceedings from last August say otherwise. Your example of the al-Haramain case could have been technically illegal at the time (excluding Article II grey areas which it would be legal under) but it's legal now:

The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury had already banned various branches of this organization at various times, including the US branch on 9 September 2004[2]. Under various names it had branches in Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Tanzania, and the USA.[1]

The American branches of this foundation were in Ashland, Oregon and Springfield, Missouri. Two directors of those branches, Suliman Al-Buthe ( ?????? ?????? ) and Aqeel Abdul Aziz Al-Aqil ( ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ), are now personally embargoed worldwide by the UN.[1]

If any of these men had communication with any of the international branches then the NSA had a right to wiretap them if they were deemed a threat to national security. Without a warrant at the time it could have been a violation of their 4th Amendment rights but Bush could have easily said he authorized it using Article II powers. Still a grey area, and I'm glad the NSA won't need a warrant in the present for people like this (ties to AQ).

Your post contradicts itself. You admit that wiretapping that 'could be technically illegal' was conducted, but then say there were safeguards in place to prevent this vast unchecked executive power. The ONLY reason anyone knows about this likely illegal wiretaps is because the FBI was so stupid as to disclose a classified document that showed them committing what were quite possibly crimes. Had the FBI handled its documents well there would never have been a case at all. So, how are there safeguards to prevent this?

As for the Article II grey areas, they rely on nearly the same rationale of the Yoo memos that declared torture legal. That is... not very grey. And who cares if it's legal now?! That's my entire point. The executive branch was probably committing dozens or hundreds of felonies, and doing so on purpose. Doesn't that bother you?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse
When did this turn into a case of investigating previous administrations and their crimes?

The knee-jerking I've been talking about here has to do with Obama, and his continuation of legal and constitutional program(s). Please see the title of the thread ...

Say what? Did you even read the first sentence of the article?

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

This case was filed in 2008, about activities that occurred during and with the approval of the Bush administration.

I don't give a shit about the first line in the article. The debate in this thread, the subsequent knee-jerking, and my responses, were based on the mistaken belief, by many here, that Obama is continuing "Bush's illegal wiretap programs."

Which is simply not true.

Originally posted by: OrByte
don't divert.

You're the one who is trying to make this about alleged crimes of the last administration. I, on the other hand, have been trying to point out that the specific program(s) Obama has chosen to continue are not illegal or unconstitutional. Period.

Originally posted by: Harvey
As it stands, I believe you're dead ass wrong. Many aspects of the programs clearly violate the Constitution, no matter what chickenshit concessions Congress or anyone else tries to make to weasel around the issue.

Please explain to me, in detail, using technical specifics, which program(s) are unconstitutional.

The interview posted was completely devoid of any technical details or facts related to the program(s) in question. Olbermann and Turley basically held a rhetorical circle jerk using catch-phrases derived from the wiretap issue, nothing more.

However, there is plenty of unclassified detail out there to provide you with the answers, so there is no excuse for omitting such data from your argument.

When the EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals first shredded the Constitution and started spying on American citizens. Those traitorous turds deserve years of quality time in cells at Guantanamo. :thumbsdown: :|

:roll: What does any of that have to do with the "wiretap" program(s) Obama himself has elected to continue?

Each and every one of which was deemed legal by FISC and the US Congress via FISA 2008.

The only program of questionable legality during the last 10 years was the Bush-era TSP. That specific program involved 100 taps before it was discontinued. The powers leveraged to execute the TSP program were supposedly derived from "grey areas" in the Presidential Authorities listed in Article II. However, to this day, no high court has ever ruled on the legality or constitutionality of the TSP, so it's impossible to say one way or another whether or not the program was legal or constitutional -- beyond personal opinion, that is.

I sincerely hope that you know and understand the bast differences between the TSP and the program(s) Obama has elected to continue. I guess I'll find out if/when you answer my challenge above...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse
When did this turn into a case of investigating previous administrations and their crimes?

The knee-jerking I've been talking about here has to do with Obama, and his continuation of legal and constitutional program(s). Please see the title of the thread ...

Say what? Did you even read the first sentence of the article?

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

This case was filed in 2008, about activities that occurred during and with the approval of the Bush administration.

I don't give a shit about the first line in the article. The debate in this thread, the subsequent knee-jerking, and my responses, were based on the mistaken belief, by many here, that Obama is continuing "Bush's illegal wiretap programs."

Which is simply not true.

What you "give a shit about" is irrelevant. The reality is there are (at least) two related topics being discussed in this thread. One of them is the Obama administration's decision to try to dismiss Jewel vs. NSA.