Obama / NSA listening to phone calls without warrants

[ivwshane]

But he is the boss of the head of the NSA and could have stopped it the moment he entered office. He did not, he allowed the insane stretch in interpreting the law to be used and expanded.

And no matter what you say or want to believe this is not legal.

Says who? Have there already been court cases that have ruled this illegal? No? Then at best you could say that this shouldn't be legal.

So your point is what exactly?

 

[shady28]

Says who? Have there already been court cases that have ruled this illegal? No? Then at best you could say that this shouldn't be legal.

So your point is what exactly?

Katz v. United States Illegal Wiretapping Case (1967)

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/katz-v-united-states-illegal-wiretapping-case-1967#ixzz2XBcOcALT

Judge's ruling :

"“No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend’s apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001-2007)

"FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]"

"On March 31, 2010, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, ruled that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been "subjected to unlawful surveillance", the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.[47]"



"Three ex-NSA staffers, William Binney, J. Kirke Wiebe, and Ed Loomis, all of whom had quit NSA over concerns about the legality of the agency's activities, teamed with Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, to ask the Inspector General to investigate. A major source for the IG report was Thomas Andrews Drake, an ex-Air Force senior NSA official with an expertise in computers. Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun published a series of articles about Trailblazer in 2006-2007.

The FBI agents investigating the 2005 The New York Times story eventually made their way to The Baltimore Sun story, and then to Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark, and Drake. In 2007 armed FBI agents raided the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe. Binney claimed they pointed guns at his head. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.

None were charged with crimes except for Drake. In 2010 he was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as part of Obama's unprecedented crackdown on leakers.[48][49] The charges against him were dropped in 2011 and he pled to a single misdemeanor.

 

[shady28]

And just so there's no confusion from my original post :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001-2007)

"FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." "

"FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

 

[werepossum]

Katz v. United States Illegal Wiretapping Case (1967)

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/katz-v-united-states-illegal-wiretapping-case-1967#ixzz2XBcOcALT

Judge's ruling :

"“No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend’s apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001-2007)

"FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]"

"On March 31, 2010, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, ruled that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been "subjected to unlawful surveillance", the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.[47]"



"Three ex-NSA staffers, William Binney, J. Kirke Wiebe, and Ed Loomis, all of whom had quit NSA over concerns about the legality of the agency's activities, teamed with Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, to ask the Inspector General to investigate. A major source for the IG report was Thomas Andrews Drake, an ex-Air Force senior NSA official with an expertise in computers. Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun published a series of articles about Trailblazer in 2006-2007.

The FBI agents investigating the 2005 The New York Times story eventually made their way to The Baltimore Sun story, and then to Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark, and Drake. In 2007 armed FBI agents raided the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe. Binney claimed they pointed guns at his head. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.

None were charged with crimes except for Drake. In 2010 he was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as part of Obama's unprecedented crackdown on leakers.[48][49] The charges against him were dropped in 2011 and he pled to a single misdemeanor.

Excellent post. This really is chilling. Unfortunately just as Obama is worse than Bush who was worse than Clinton who was worse than Bush who was rose than Reagan*, I expect the next President, be it Democrat or Republican, to be even worse.

* I end with Reagan because ain't no President worse than Carter.

 

[Fenixgoon]

And just so there's no confusion from my original post :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001-2007)

"FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." "

"FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

while i would like to believe that domestic calls from a citizen are not subject to any sort of surveillance....

let's take the hypothetical situation of a US citizen making a phone call, text message, or email to another US citizen where a threat against the president or the government in general was discussed..... i would be a betting man and say there would be MIBs showing up shortly thereafter.

so no, i do not believe that the government is actually limiting itself to monitoring only calls outside the US. i believe it is more likely that virtually all data being transmitted is being analyzed.

 

[ivwshane]

And just so there's no confusion from my original post :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001-2007)

"FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." "

"FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

We aren't talking about wire taps we are talking about anonymous data collection of everyone. The data, supposedly, just being meta data.

Do you have a specific case regarding that?

 

[Darwin333]

Clearly if the current laws aren't being applied to new technology then there is a problem.

Or do you not see any issues and think the president should do his own checks and balances on himself?

You don't seem to get it. Its not that existing laws aren't being applied its that the existing supreme law of the land is flat out being ignored.

What you are proposing is that we pass a law that says the president must abide by the law which if it works then fine. If a President, who is supposedly a constitutional scholar, is so willing to blatantly and willfully violate the existing and well established constitutional law what in the world makes you think some new law passed by Congress will change anything? What are you proposing, they add "and we really mean it dammit!" in the new law?

 

[Darwin333]

Says who? Have there already been court cases that have ruled this illegal? No? Then at best you could say that this shouldn't be legal.

So your point is what exactly?

Says the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in very very plain language. If you need help with any of the words I will be more than happy to help but this is just as blatant and illegal as him enforcing a law that says you can't vote for Republicans or some shit like that.

What you are arguing is that we essentially have no rights whatsoever. The .gov has unlimited resources to continually pass new laws taking away whatever rights they want and if/when the Supreme Court strikes it down they tweak it a bit and pass a new law. Rinse and repeat. You are also implying that the Supreme Court grants us our rights. I do not believe either of those things are true.

Frankly, Obama and Bush are both guilty of high treason and should be hung on the White House lawn side by side over this. It is that bad and that blatant and thats not even considering how absurdly bullshit their "legal reasoning" for being able to do it is. You have to be seriously short bus retarded to think that any law cited in this thread gives the President the kind of power that he is currently yielding.

Even worse and perhaps the scariest thought is, a group of assholes at the NSA have access to virtually every communication made in the United States. That includes Congressmen, Senators, Judges (including the SC Justices) and maybe even the president himself. Since we know for an absolute fact that our politicians are nothing but self serving assholes, it would almost be absurd to think that kind of blackmail power ISN'T being used already with great success. Let that roll around in your head for a while.

 

[Darwin333]

We aren't talking about wire taps we are talking about anonymous data collection of everyone. The data, supposedly, just being meta data.

Do you have a specific case regarding that?

Actually we don't really know what we are talking about but numerous reports have stated that they are collecting and storing the phone calls/content themselves as well.

And why in the hell would you use the word anonymous? If its anonymous data then by very definition it is absolutely useless for intelligence gathering, especially given such a huge amount of "anonymous data", and as such there would be no point in them collecting it in the first place.

 

[piasabird]

How can you believe O'Bamma when he speaks. Everything out of his mouth is either hime playing ignorant claiming it is the first time he ever knew abouth what the government is doing or he is just lying. So is O'Bamma the most incompetent lying sack of cow dung or what?

 

[piasabird]

I bet he said "It is Bush's Fault!"

 

[Nintendesert]

We aren't talking about wire taps we are talking about anonymous data collection of everyone. The data, supposedly, just being meta data.

Do you have a specific case regarding that?

I recommend you go look up what that metadata is. There's nothing anonymous about it. :|

Now we get to this:

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



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



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

I ask you, do you really think that the NSA doesn't also collect the phone conversations too? Be mindful of the spokespeople parsing words in regards to "listening in" or "eavesdropping" which are words that describe sound monitoring.

I'm very certain the conversations are being transcribed into text and attached to that metadata so that analysts if need be can go back and review those conversations. Reading isn't the same as listening in on or eavesdropping so they aren't really lying to us again... :whiste:

 

[ivwshane]

Lol. If the constitution was written in such plain language then we wouldn't be concerned with how the supreme court interprets it.

But you know as well as I do that the constitution is not black an white and there is plenty of grey area.

You say metadata is not anonymous and that may be true but it's certainly not the same as recording a phone call.

You guys would like to think this stuff is a violation of the constitution (I'd like to think it is as well) but that's not how the law works.
No one gives a fuck how YOU GUYS interpret the law.

 

[michal1980]

Lol. If the constitution was written in such plain language then we wouldn't be concerned with how the supreme court interprets it.

But you know as well as I do that the constitution is not black an white and there is plenty of grey area.

You say metadata is not anonymous and that may be true but it's certainly not the same as recording a phone call.

You guys would like to think this stuff is a violation of the constitution (I'd like to think it is as well) but that's not how the law works.
No one gives a fuck how YOU GUYS interpret the law.

A) metadata is not anonymous.
B) at this point its as bad as recording your phone call, they know when you called, who you called, where you called from, for how long, etc etc etc.
2b) it sounds like they are also recording phone calls. Given the people that came out and said they can listen into any call without warran

C) no one gives a fuck how YOU interpret the law. Obama and his goons are acting like the gestpo, spying on every single American every single day. IMHO, and the opinion of many others its a violation of the supreme court.

2c) no one can sue over this because of the catch22. To sue and have the case go before the supreme court. But to do that, you have to have standing, ie show you were spied on. But you cant do that because the spy data is secret.

 

[Jhhnn]

I recommend you go look up what that metadata is. There's nothing anonymous about it. :|

Now we get to this:




I ask you, do you really think that the NSA doesn't also collect the phone conversations too? Be mindful of the spokespeople parsing words in regards to "listening in" or "eavesdropping" which are words that describe sound monitoring.

I'm very certain the conversations are being transcribed into text and attached to that metadata so that analysts if need be can go back and review those conversations. Reading isn't the same as listening in on or eavesdropping so they aren't really lying to us again... :whiste:

In other words, what we have so far are Nadler's statements about what he thinks he heard... And you being "very certain" about the extrapolations of your own mind. Umpteen bajillion phone calls are transcribed to text every day? Really?

Which meshes perfectly with what the usual suspects want to believe, so it must be true, right?

Victims of truthiness never realize they're victims, because they can't get past what they believe to take an objective look at information. They're too busy finding convenient "facts" that "prove" they're right to do anything like that.

 

[ivwshane]

A) metadata is not anonymous.
B) at this point its as bad as recording your phone call, they know when you called, who you called, where you called from, for how long, etc etc etc.
2b) it sounds like they are also recording phone calls. Given the people that came out and said they can listen into any call without warran

C) no one gives a fuck how YOU interpret the law. Obama and his goons are acting like the gestpo, spying on every single American every single day. IMHO, and the opinion of many others its a violation of the supreme court.

2c) no one can sue over this because of the catch22. To sue and have the case go before the supreme court. But to do that, you have to have standing, ie show you were spied on. But you cant do that because the spy data is secret.

You are right, no one gives a fuck how I interpret the law. I'm aware of this, however you seem oblivious to the fact and continue to spew opinion as fact. If it is fact then there will either be specific laws you can point to or there will be specific cases that back up your claims.

But no matter how much you think something is true or how much you want it to be true it doesn't matter.

 

[TerryMathews]

Lol. If the constitution was written in such plain language then we wouldn't be concerned with how the supreme court interprets it.

But you know as well as I do that the constitution is not black an white and there is plenty of grey area.

You say metadata is not anonymous and that may be true but it's certainly not the same as recording a phone call.

You guys would like to think this stuff is a violation of the constitution (I'd like to think it is as well) but that's not how the law works.
No one gives a fuck how YOU GUYS interpret the law.

You're mistaken. You need to go back and re-read what has come out about PRISM.

All phone calls are recorded. It takes a court order to listen to them, but the files are all there just waiting for someone to have a need.

Or a desire to download them and escape to Russia. You are a short-sighted fool if you can't see the problems that will stem from our government archiving all electronic communication, in perpetuity.

 

[ivwshane]

You're mistaken. You need to go back and re-read what has come out about PRISM.

All phone calls are recorded. It takes a court order to listen to them, but the files are all there just waiting for someone to have a need.

Or a desire to download them and escape to Russia. You are a short-sighted fool if you can't see the problems that will stem from our government archiving all electronic communication, in perpetuity.

Lol, another straw man. I see the problems from these actions what I don't see is the illegality of it.
If no one is actually listening to a recorded call then is it really wire tapping? Don't answer unless you have a court case to back up your opinion (I don't know the answer myself).

 

[TerryMathews]

Lol, another straw man. I see the problems from these actions what I don't see is the illegality of it.
If no one is actually listening to a recorded call then is it really wire tapping? Don't answer unless you have a court case to back up your opinion (I don't know the answer myself).

Katz v. US

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

 

[ivwshane]

Katz v. US

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

A) They aren't listening to anything without a warrant.

B) They supposedly aren't recording anything you said only the date, time, and receiving/incoming phone number.

So I still fail to see the connection.

 

[TerryMathews]

A) They aren't listening to anything without a warrant.

B) They supposedly aren't recording anything you said only the date, time, and receiving/incoming phone number.

So I still fail to see the connection.

B is incorrect. They are recording everything.

"Dianne Feinstein, who also chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Alexander, “It’s my understanding you have the metadata, you have the records of what appears on a phone bill, and if you want to go to the content, then you have to get a court order.”

Alexander responded, “It’s correct,” adding later, “Sen. Feinstein, if you want to get the content, you’d have to get a court order.” "

 

[michal1980]

A) They aren't listening to anything without a warrant.

B) They supposedly aren't recording anything you said only the date, time, and receiving/incoming phone number.

So I still fail to see the connection.

Its obvious you fail to see any connection. You support the Chief Gestapo. And you don't give 2 rips about any short of liberties.

 

[ivwshane]

Its obvious you fail to see any connection. You support the Chief Gestapo. And you don't give 2 rips about any short of liberties.

Go fuck yourself bro. You obviously haven't been following the thread or my posts and are a waste of my time.

 

[Incorruptible]

Go fuck yourself bro. You obviously haven't been following the thread or my posts and are a waste of my time.

Take your own advice. He told the truth about you and you couldn't handle it.

 

[Darwin333]

You are right, no one gives a fuck how I interpret the law. I'm aware of this, however you seem oblivious to the fact and continue to spew opinion as fact. If it is fact then there will either be specific laws you can point to or there will be specific cases that back up your claims.

But no matter how much you think something is true or how much you want it to be true it doesn't matter.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized



^^^^^ Specific law found. You are an idiot if you think it doesn't apply.