Obama / NSA listening to phone calls without warrants

[ivwshane]

Why don't you just cut-n-paste the part of FISA that permits this broad domestic spying?

Fern

It's in the first fucking paragraph with fucking references! I've cited the laws/programs, I've posted the link, do you guys need me to read it to you too?

 

[woolfe9998]

The Patriot Act - Republican Congressional leaders who were responsible for drafting the Patriot Act ("PA") have been running around on TV stressing that the P.A. does not authorize this, in fact, they put safeguards in the bill for the explicit purpose to prevent this sort of thing. At the time it was drafted it was heatedly debated for an extended period. If the PA allowed it, surely it would have been noted. No one can find anything in it which explicitly or implicitly authorized this (however see comment below).

Fern

The ACLU, who has filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of all this, disagrees with you.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-nat...gy-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215

Essentially section 215 is a free-for-all to collect records. The agency must apply to the court for an order permitting it, but probable cause is not required. The only thing required is that the records are not sought "solely" for the reason that a citizen is exercising his First Amendment rights, though apparently it is OK if that is part of the reason.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

It's in the first fucking paragraph with fucking references! I've cited the laws/programs, I've posted the link, do you guys need me to read it to you too?

You're claiming this authorizes it?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. The law has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

^ 50 USC §1801(b) "“Agent of a foreign power” means--
(2) any person who--
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)."

So you're claiming that ALL US citizens meet the definition of "Agent of a foreign power..suspected of espionage or terrorism"?

Surely you can't be suggesting that. So, yes, we need you to explain your position and link up or quote the text.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

You're claiming this authorizes it?



So you're claiming that ALL US citizens meet the definition of "Agent of a foreign power..suspected of espionage or terrorism"?

Surely you can't be suggesting that. So, yes, we need you to explain your position and link up or quote the text.

Fern

Where did I claim ALL citizens meet that definition? You guys and your fucking straw men!

The powers give the NSA the authority to spy on citizens. Of course there are restrictions as I said originally but that's where they get their authority from. Metadata is also not the same as reading emails or listening to phone calls, so the wholesale collection of that data isn't protected by privacy rights (as far as I know).

 

[Fern]

Where did I claim ALL citizens meet that definition? You guys and your fucking straw men!

The powers give the NSA the authority to spy on citizens. Of course there are restrictions as I said originally but that's where they get their authority from. Metadata is also not the same as reading emails or listening to phone calls, so the wholesale collection of that data isn't protected by privacy rights (as far as I know).

First, we're not talking about metadata.

We're talking about the other programs that are claimed to spy on Americans. We're talking about ALL digital communications of ALL Americans being recorded and stored.

Nothing in FISA authorizes that.

Yes, under certain strict conditions FISA authorizes 'spying' on Americans. It is well defined and the spying type activities are permitted for a brief limited period before a warrant must be obtained. This has nothing to do with grabbing everyone's stuff for unlimited periods with no basis for suspicion etc.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I see that so far Fern has no response regarding section 215 of the PA and its obvious lack of a probable cause requirement.

An article to read on the problem with 215 of the Patriot Act and the 2008 Amendment to FISA:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...t-here-and-what-we-can-do-to-get-back/276667/

 

[Fern]

The ACLU, who has filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of all this, disagrees with you.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-nat...gy-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215

Essentially section 215 is a free-for-all to collect records. The agency must apply to the court for an order permitting it, but probable cause is not required. The only thing required is that the records are not sought "solely" for the reason that a citizen is exercising his First Amendment rights, though apparently it is OK if that is part of the reason.

- wolf

Fine, they disagree with me and the members of Congress who drafted it.

Here's the relevant text:

SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and

`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

So, are we to conclude that the DoJ authorized an investigation against all of us for "international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities"?

If so we need some serious azz-kicking, the DoJ, the 4 Congressional Committee members and any Presidents who allowed this shizz to go on.

Do you know if the ACLU has filed the suit yet? I want to read it.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

First, we're not talking about metadata.

We're talking about the other programs that are claimed to spy on Americans. We're talking about ALL digital communications of ALL Americans being recorded and stored.

Nothing in FISA authorizes that.

Yes, under certain strict conditions FISA authorizes 'spying' on Americans. It is well defined and the spying type activities are permitted for a brief limited period before a warrant must be obtained. This has nothing to do with grabbing everyone's stuff for unlimited periods with no basis for suspicion etc.

Fern

Do you have a credible source saying what type of data is being collected?


Is there a law saying that grabbing or more accurately storing that type of data is illegal? Is it illegal to store data, then request a warrant to view particular pieces of that data?

 

[ivwshane]

Fine, they disagree with me and the members of Congress who drafted it.

Here's the relevant text:



So, are we to conclude that the DoJ authorized an investigation against all of us for "international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities"?

If so we need some serious azz-kicking, the DoJ, the 4 Congressional Committee members and any Presidents who allowed this shizz to go on.

Do you know if the ACLU has filed the suit yet? I want to read it.

Fern

Now you see why this is an issue and why a simple executive order would not be the correct response. Everyone from all sides needs to let "their" party know they want some serious checks to prevent any possible form of abuses from happening. This is not an Obama issue or a democrat issue or a republican issue, it's am American issue.

 

[Fern]

Do you have a credible source saying what type of data is being collected?

I don't know what you consider "credible", but since Edward Snowden's claims other ex-NSA whistle blowers have come forward too. IIRC, the names of two NSA programs specifically mentioned for domestic spying are PRISM and NUCLEON.

Here's a recent article on NUCLEON. I assume you are familiar with Snowden and his claims about the NSA PRISM program.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

Is there a law saying that grabbing or more accurately storing that type of data is illegal? Is it illegal to store data, then request a warrant to view particular pieces of that data?

If by "law" you mean one passed by Congress outlawing such I must believe the answer is 'no' since it's apparently being done.

However, many, including me, strongly believe these programs to be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

I.e., I think it illegal to obtain that data in the manner they are doing.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Now you see why this is an issue and why a simple executive order would not be the correct response.
-snip-

What do you mean?

Are you saying the President could NOT stop this with an Executive Order? If so, I disagree.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

Fine, they disagree with me and the members of Congress who drafted it.

Here's the relevant text:



So, are we to conclude that the DoJ authorized an investigation against all of us for "international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities"?

If so we need some serious azz-kicking, the DoJ, the 4 Congressional Committee members and any Presidents who allowed this shizz to go on.

Do you know if the ACLU has filed the suit yet? I want to read it.

Fern

Yeah, that's exactly what we are to conclude, because that is all the statute requires. I too read the statute and I agree with the ACLU's understanding of it. Read it yourself: no probable cause is required. Per the section you bolded, the agency need only certify that they are trying to protect us against international terrorism. Their affidavit to the court probably reads something like this: to protect against terrorism, we need to collect data on a wholesale basis so that we have it available if or when we have probable cause to review it with respect to a particular individual. We will not review the information until such time, and at such time we will seek a warrant based on probable cause. Until then, section 215 authorizes us to collect this data and store it for possible future use.

What do you see in the statute that would preclude this?

That is what the ACLU will argue in its lawsuit, that the statute is unconstitutionally over-broad because it doesn't require probable cause. I agree with them.

 

[ivwshane]

What do you mean?

Are you saying the President could NOT stop this with an Executive Order? If so, I disagree.

Fern

OMG!

Yes he could stop it with an EO, however, it would only stop his presidency, what about future presidents?

AND HERE IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING FOREVER!!

He won't create an EO to stop it because HE SUPPORTS THE PROGRAM!

 

[ivwshane]

If by "law" you mean one passed by Congress outlawing such I must believe the answer is 'no' since it's apparently being done.

However, many, including me, strongly believe these programs to be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

I.e., I think it illegal to obtain that data in the manner they are doing.

Yeah I agree. However Obama doesn't agree which is why I find it perplexing that you want/think Obama to fix this.

 

[Fern]

Yeah, that's exactly what we are to conclude, because that is all the statute requires. I too read the statute and I agree with the ACLU's understanding of it. Read it yourself: no probable cause is required. Per the section you bolded, the agency need only certify that they are trying to protect us against international terrorism. Their affidavit to the court probably reads something like this: to protect against terrorism, we need to collect data on a wholesale basis so that we have it available if or when we have probable cause to review it with respect to a particular individual. We will not review the information until such time, and at such time we will seek a warrant based on probable cause. Until then, section 215 authorizes us to collect this data and store it for possible future use.

What do you see in the statute that would preclude this?

I do not see the wholesale gathering of private info as an "investigation" in any sense of the word's meaning. And I think it's obvious because only when they do start an "investigation" will they seek access to the records. I.e., if you ain't seeking records you ain't investigating anything.

That is what the ACLU will argue in its lawsuit, that the statute is unconstitutionally over-broad because it doesn't require probable cause. I agree with them.

I think one would need to see the AG's guidelines and the relevant Exec orders to determine if probable cause is required or not.

(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order)

If probable cause is not required (hard for me to imagine starting an investigation without a crime being yet committed and investigating people without probable cause) the law should be amended to require it.

Another potentially major problem I see is allowing the AG to establish the guidelines. I tend not to trust them much. I don't care what people say about their independence from the Exec/President, they are appointed by the President and serve as his pleasure. I.e., a President can and will 'shop' for an AG who'll do his bidding.

If an AG set up guidelines found to violate our constitutional rights I want to see their azz kicked all the way to a federal pen.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Yeah I agree. However Obama doesn't agree which is why I find it perplexing that you want/think Obama to fix this.

I'm not sure what he agrees with. Heck, if the reports about PRISM and NUCLEON are true he either lied to us or didn't know what's going on.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I do not see the wholesale gathering of private info as an "investigation" in any sense of the word's meaning. And I think it's obvious because only when they do start an "investigation" will they seek access to the records. I.e., if you ain't seeking records you ain't investigating anything.

I think that sort of ambiguity can be argued to the SCOTUS, as a second line of attack - that they violated the statute with an over-broad interpretation. It's better, however, if the statute is unconstitutional.

I think one would need to see the AG's guidelines and the relevant Exec orders to determine if probable cause is required or not.

Sure, we can look at them, but those guidelines are entirely at the discretion of the AG and can be changed at any time to suit whatever the administration wants to do. I wouldn't hold out much hope over those guidelines.

If probable cause is not required (hard for me to imagine starting an investigation without a crime being yet committed and investigating people without probable cause) the law should be amended to require it.

I doubt the authorities will voluntarily impose upon themselves proof requirements not imposed by statute. There is really no excuse for the statute not requiring probable cause. It gives the executive branch carte blanche.

Another potentially major problem I see is allowing the AG to establish the guidelines. I tend not to trust them much. I don't care what people say about their independence from the Exec/President, they are appointed by the President and serve as his pleasure. I.e., a President can and will 'shop' for an AG who'll do his bidding.

Yes, that's exactly correct, and that's why the statute is over-broad.

If an AG set up guidelines found to violate our constitutional rights I want to see their azz kicked all the way to a federal pen.

Not going to happen, especially not if they followed the statute. Following an unconstitutional statute has never been held to be a crime. If the statute doesn't require probable cause and leaves it up to the executive branch, I fail to see how that is ground for much in the way of legal repercussion.

We need to fix these statutes either by legislative action or judicial action. Unfortunately I don't know that we have the votes in Congress, or Obama's agreement, to do the former. As to the latter, the SCOTUS has apparently been holding to strict standing requirements for these Constitutional lawsuits. Let's hope the plaintiffs are able to navigate that hurdle so that the suits can be heard on their merit instead of burning out on a procedural hurdle.

 

[palehorse]

OMG!
He won't create an EO to stop it because HE SUPPORTS THE PROGRAM!

And yet you still support him... so, what does that say about you?

 

[Jhhnn]

To be fair, I think rather a lot of people would. People tend to credit or blame the President for all sorts of things over which he has limited or no control, and this would be a failure that, right or wrong, would point straight back at Obama or whichever President fails to use the power extended.

Yep. Witness the raving over the underwear bomber, fast & furious, Benghazi, the IRS & now this. Whatever goes wrong, it's all Obama's fault. Everything. Either he's omniscient or he's supposed to be, depending on the outrage du jour...

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not sure what he agrees with. Heck, if the reports about PRISM and NUCLEON are true he either lied to us or didn't know what's going on.

Fern

Always with the innuendo. What you reference aren't "reports", they're *speculation*.

 

[ivwshane]

And yet you still support him... so, what does that say about you?

Lol, was there another presidential candidate that was against the patriot act?

What does it say? It says nothing other than my choices are limited. Is there a politician you agree with on every issue? I doubt it, so...what's your point?


What does it say about you that you are turning this into a partisan political issue?

It's says you are a fucking partisan hack😉

 

[palehorse]

Yep. Witness the raving over the underwear bomber, fast & furious, Benghazi, the IRS & now this. Whatever goes wrong, it's all Obama's fault. Everything. Either he's omniscient or he's supposed to be, depending on the outrage du jour...

...and then, behind door number two, there's you with the belief that NONE of the current problems are his responsibility.

Imagine that.

 

[palehorse]

Always with the innuendo. What you reference aren't "reports", they're *speculation*.

What issues are you referring to as "speculation," specifically?

 

[palehorse]

Lol, was there another presidential candidate that was against the patriot act?

What does it say? It says nothing other than my choices are limited. Is there a politician you agree with on every issue? I doubt it, so...what's your point?

What does it say about you that you are turning this into a partisan political issue?

It's says you are a fucking partisan hack😉

You have already made it quite clear, in this very thread, that you're much more worried about Obama's political standing than you are about protecting our civil liberties. You've said exactly that!

And then you have the audacity to call me a political hack?! That's f'n rich!

I think you need to go back and read my very first post in this thread. Then, keep re-reading it over and over until it sinks in...

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol, was there another presidential candidate that was against the patriot act?

What does it say? It says nothing other than my choices are limited. Is there a politician you agree with on every issue? I doubt it, so...what's your point?


What does it say about you that you are turning this into a partisan political issue?

It's says you are a fucking partisan hack😉

Well, yeh, of course.