Codename: Prism

[Busybody]

Lest we forget

Remember John Poindexter and what he TRIED to do?

And

What in turn was done to him?

 

[Busybody]

and in the hands of BIG BROTHER

this leads to NOTHING GOOD

and

ObamaCO have shown themselves to be BIG BROTHER and BULLIES


the MOST RECENT?

New York Times quietly changes published editorial to make it less damning of Obama



The New York Times edited its damning editorial condemning the Obama administration for collecting phone call data from Americans to make it less stinging shortly after the editorial was published online Thursday afternoon.

The editorial originally declared that the Obama “administration has lost all credibility” as a result of the recently revealed news that the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been secretly collecting call data from American users of Verizon under the authority of the Patriot Act.

But hours later the stinging sentence had been modified to read the Obama “administration has now lost all credibility on this issue.” [Emphasis added]




According to NewsDiffs.com, a website which tracks changes to online articles, at 3:34 p.m. ET the editorial damned the Obama administration generally and by 7:09 p.m. ET it had been edited to damn the Obama administration more narrowly over its collection of call data.

NewsDiffs also showed that several other modifications had been made to the editorial, but none as significant as its change to the originally broad condemnation of the Obama administration.

The new version of the article contains no indication that it has been changed.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/n...-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/#ixzz2VWkXyHfj

 

[Busybody]

oh, we all know our resident KOOL AID STOOGE, MO.....it doesn't matter how many times the IRS stooges go to the WH, Obama knew nothing.......CURRY


will soon be here and bleat

OBAMA DIDNT CHANGE THE TIMES EDITORIAL



Yes CURRY

We know

 

[Busybody]

Thanks to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) for marking this March 12 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing right to the point where Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denied the National Security Agency was “wittingly” collecting data on millions of Americans:




UPDATE: In a lengthy statement today, Clapper slammed the Guardian article on the Verizon records, saying “the unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation.”

“The article omits key information regarding how a classified intelligence collection program is used to prevent terrorist attacks and the numerous safeguards that protect privacy and civil liberties,” Clapper said.

“…Discussing programs like this publicly will have an impact on the behavior of our adversaries and make it more difficult for us to understand their intentions. Surveillance programs like this one are consistently subject to safeguards that are designed to strike the appropriate balance between national security interests and civil liberties and privacy concerns. I believe it is important to address the misleading impression left by the article and to reassure the American people that the Intelligence Community is committed to respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all American citizens.”

 

[Busybody]

the statement by James MUSLIM Clapper is identical to all the statements made by BushCO


IDENTICAL




Clearly, ObamaCO needs to apologize to BushCO!

 

[sigh]

It is a travesty of justice but not specifically an Obama scandal. The program was instituted in 2007 (says it right there in the OP) and grew out of the same hysteria that produced the Patriot Act and the DHS. Some of us were against this nonsense then because it was obvious how it could be abused. Some only decided it was a scandal when they realized that Obama was actually using the powers they willingly gave to Bush.

We should abhor this. It's terrible. We've been letting corporations treat us like criminals until we prove ourselves innocent for years and now we've handed that power over to the government as well. Why don't we all just jail ourselves willingly and let the government/corporate heads (hard to separate the two most days) decide who is safe enough (or correct enough) to let go?

The terrorists are laughing. They've already won a great victory and they know it. We handed it to them on a silver platter.

 

[Busybody]

It is a travesty of justice but not specifically an Obama scandal. The program was instituted in 2007 (says it right there in the OP) and grew out of the same hysteria that produced the Patriot Act and the DHS. Some of us were against this nonsense then because it was obvious how it could be abused. Some only decided it was a scandal when they realized that Obama was actually using the powers they willingly gave to Bush.

We should abhor this. It's terrible. We've been letting corporations treat us like criminals until we prove ourselves innocent for years and now we've handed that power over to the government as well. Why don't we all just jail ourselves willingly and let the government/corporate heads (hard to separate the two most days) decide who is safe enough (or correct enough) to let go?

The terrorists are laughing. They've already won a great victory and they know it. We handed it to them on a silver platter.

you couldn't be more wrong!

(as usual)


the US needs effective weapons to fight terror.....and just because terror attacks (with 9/11, excepted) have been minor, doesn't mean that they havent tried or are trying major attacks

any and all tools MUST BE USED


the PROBLEM is ObamaCO, who defines TERROR as

WE THE PEOPLE

and who cannot be trusted

Oh, I know, your head is in the sand

AP What?

IRS? Yawn!

Benghazi? WHO CARES?




The PROBLEM IS OBAMACO......an ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/401949_614132531931457_877477706_n.jpg

 

[Busybody]

With all the ObamaCO scandals

Erupting

Every day

We can be sure

SNL will an hr long skit

On









































SARAH PALIN

 

[Busybody]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E5XqksVAWho/UbDY5XnRtzI/AAAAAAAAIik/8j0jXC0cePw/s640/Calling-Card.jpg
On Thursday, the Whitehouse defended its massive, ongoing collection of telephone records from American citizens by saying that they don't actually pay attention to what is said during your formerly-private phonecalls, and that invading the privacy of Americans is a valuable tool in the "War on Terror."................In other words.......they COLLECT ALL THE INFO, but don't listen in on it...............Sorta like the WH logs saying the IRS turd showed up 157 times, but it DOESNT mean he showed up.............

But since B. Hussein just announced that he's winding down the old "War on Terror" which involved (and continues to involve) radical Islamists blowing innocent people into halal-sized chunks, Hope n' Change is forced to assume that the Whitehouse must be using this valuable tool for a new and different "War on Terror."

Specifically, this Whitehouse is in terror of the American people in general, and conservatives in particular - and is actively using the IRS, the NSA, Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to clamp down hard on us. Not just through the collection of phone records, but through collection of your shopping habits, your travels, your online activities, and presumably the results of any recent colonoscopies.

Of course, all of your information will be handled in an absolutely confidential, non-political way, in much the same way that the IRS handles your personal data.

Still, just to be safe, it might be a good idea not to use inflammatory words like "patriot," "liberty," "constitution," or "freedom" when you're using the phone or Internet. You never know what mischief a couple of low-level "rogue agents" at the NSA might get into.

 

[Squibbs]

If this sort of thing has been going on since the Patriot Act and FISA court laws were passed a decade ago, why is it suddenly an Obama scandal?

Looks like every Republican voted to extend FISA courts in 2012 except three. These are powers that congress wanted Obama to have - in fact more Republicans than Democrats wanted Obama to have these powers.

Now Republicans are whining that Obama has these powers that they created. In fact it's an outright scandal that he's using them.

Republicans are stupid whiny cunts.

Just look at any vetteman thread.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

From Fox News:

Would you give up your phone call record privacy for this?

Goddamnit, there is no such thing as "phone CALL RECORD privacy"!! It is this wildly inaccurate assumption of Constitutional law regarding the CONTENT of phone CONVERSATIONS as compared to the few and minimal DATA ELEMENTS in a phone call RECORD that is sending a nation of dumbfucks into literal panic! Fourth Amendment provisions protect private PHONE CONVERSATIONS from government intrusion. The Constitution does NOT protect marketing, or other BUSINESS DATA, generated in the normal course of commerce WHICH YOU AS A CONSUMER DO NOT EVEN OWN!!

This thread desperately needs educating.

The legal requirements associated with obtaining and using these two vastly different forms of information also differ. Surveillance efforts to obtain information of a nature that would appropriately be protected by the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant – even if that surveillance is subject to oversight by and the subsequent warrant issued by a FISA court convened and operating in secret. Such was the circumstance in Al Haramain, and the government obviously erred by not obtaining a warrant.

Understanding the current Verizon brouhaha requires a bit of legal research.

The arguably ethereal “right of privacy” unquestionably inferred if not specifically articulated by the Constitution, has as its current foundation, the prescriptive elements voiced in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in the landmark case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967):

“My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm..._0347_ZC1.html

SCOTUS further honed the “reasonableness” of society’s expectations in two additional cases soon after Katz. Said the Court in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976):

Quote:

“Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent's private papers..

(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=425&invol=435

The 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979) involved the communication of phone records all but identical to the issues in the Verizon circumstances today:

“The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does, in fact, record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone, rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information to the police.”

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../735/case.html

Despite the presumed lack of Fourth Amendment protection for the Verizon call records consistent with the ruling in Smith, the current language of the Patriot Act nonetheless requires a warrant, and one was duly obtained this past April, as has been noted previously in this forum.

 

[Busybody]

and leave it to Hogan to edumickate us

 

[unregistered]

 

[sigh]

The point is, this level of intrusiveness was never authorized by law. Hogan explained it here;

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=45672843&postcount=37

and the author of the Patriot Act says the law never authorized it here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-records-collection-excessive/#ixzz2VUziqj2C

Did you and BB somehow miss that I used the words abhor and travesty in reference to this practice? Do you know what those words mean? Just because I say something doesn't automatically mean that I disagree with you, you know.

 

[zipman]

The point is, this level of intrusiveness was never authorized by law. Hogan explained it here;

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=45672843&postcount=37

and the author of the Patriot Act says the law never authorized it here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-records-collection-excessive/#ixzz2VUziqj2C

So why is this an issue now?

From your link:
The leaders of the Senate intelligence committee also defended the program, saying it is "nothing new." Republican Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss said it's been going on for seven years.

Your partisan outrage is duly noted.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

So why is this an issue now?

From your link:
The leaders of the Senate intelligence committee also defended the program, saying it is "nothing new." Republican Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss said it's been going on for seven years.

Your partisan outrage is duly noted.

So is yours, "well Bush started it".

 

[zipman]

Sensenbrenner, the author, says the level of eavesdropping exceeds the authority he wrote into the law. Can you understand that? The law was never intended to cast a net over the entire American population, notwithstanding the comments of Saxby and others.

I quoted the relevant piece and even bolded it.

How fucking stupid are you?

This has been going on for 7 years. Which means it started under the Glorious President George "Hollowed Be His Name" Bush. You trying to paint this as an Obama scandal is hysterical.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Bush really is turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving. One day the Right will wise up and move along.

 

[unregistered]

 

[zipman]

You can bold anything you want, the real point is the one I raised. I don't care if it went on for ten years, the extent of the overreach didn't become apparent to the public until now, gleefully expanded upon and carried out on Obama's watch....you fucking asshole.

Again, according to YOUR link it was not expanded upon as it has been going on for 7 years. Do you have another link to show that Obama expanded it? Do you have a picture or link to show Obama doing it in a gleeful way? Or do you expect us to just believe your bullshit?

I love the smell of faux outrage.

Thanks for yet another classic vettefail thread

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So why did Congress see fit to write Section 215 of the Patriot Act? And is a violation of that Section excused by the Constitution?

You have to remember that the Patriot Act came after the creation of FISA and that the thrust of the Patriot Act was motivated significantly by the events of 9/11. The following is directly from Wiki, so you may want to assume, based on the rantings of kbate, that every single word is untrue and that those footnote numbers lead only to now defunct web pages displaying "404 errors," but since I'm too dumb to do actual legal research (which I only pretend to understand), this is all you're going to get. Words in brackets [ ] are my own and not found in the original excerpt.

Andrew C. McCarthy believed that sections 214 (deals with Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority under FISA) and 215 (expanded what records could be accessed under FISA) should be retained. He argues that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17(c), authorizes the compulsory production of "any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects" to criminal investigators by mere subpoena, and so section 215 merely brought FISA into line with current criminal law. He also states that the records included in section 215 are records held by third-parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy. In light of this, McCarthy believes that there are three main reasons why the access to library records is not a problem: firstly he believes that the government has always had the authority to compel the reading of records by subpoena and there has been "no empirical indication of systematic prying into private choices – else we'd surely have heard from the robustly organized librarians"; secondly he believes that in the current information age that there is just too much information for inappropriate access to such records; and thirdly he believes that an a priori ban on the investigative access to the reading of records would be both unprecedented and wrong. He points out that "literature evidence was a staple of terrorism prosecutions throughout the 1990's" and that the reading of records has already led to convictions of terrorists.

Though the government [under the Patriot Act] must only specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation instead of providing [as required by FISA] "specific and articulable facts" to perform surveillance on an agent of a foreign power, he points out that it prohibits investigations that violate first amendment rights of citizens, which he says is not specified in the corresponding criminal procedures. He says that the FISC is not meant to apply searching judicial review of surveillance orders as the role of the judiciary is to make sure the executive branch is not abusing its powers and "by requiring the FBI to make solemn representations to the court, and mandating that the Attorney General report semi-annually on this provision's implementation, Section 215 provides suitable metrics for oversight and, if necessary, reform". However, McCarthy does believe that section 215 "should be amended to clarify that order recipients may move the FISA court to quash or narrow production", however he says that the US DOJ has already decided that this is implicit in the section so it is probably unnecessary. He believes that further amendment is unnecessary and unwise.

On section 214, McCarthy believes that the pre-Patriot Act version of FISA, which required government agencies to "certify that the monitored communications would likely be those either of an international terrorist or spy involved in a violation of U.S. criminal law, or of an agent of a foreign power involved in terrorism or espionage" was "an unnecessary and imprudently high hurdle" as pen registers and [trap and trace] wiretaps do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, he argues, "there is no constitutional reason to require investigators to seek court authorization for them at all". Thus McCarthy says, the amendments to FISA made by section 214 are "both modest and eminently reasonable".[7]

Peter P. Swire was much more skeptical about section 214 and 215 than McCarthy. He explains that FISA originally did not apply to business records and was only designed for surveillance, and after the Oklahoma and World Trade Center bombing it was amended to apply to travel documents only. It was section 215 that made broad changes to allow access to business records. He also explains that the legal standing changed in such a way that a FISA order to access business records to could apply to anyone, and if necessary the government could ask for access to whole databases. He argues that "FISA orders can now apply to anyone, not only the target of the investigation" and that it is no longer necessary for FISA orders to be targeted against a foreign power or agents of a foreign power, but can now be used to gain records of those who have nothing to do with a foreign power. He says that there are only weak constraints to base the order on an authorised investigation and that surveillance must not be based entirely on First Amendment activities.

Swire pointed out that business records obtained under FISA are different from those obtained under similar criminal legislation, in that gag orders may not be applied to criminal investigations. He also argues that the US DOJ's assertion that they can gain access to documents held by a third party because these documents are not protected by the Fourth Amendment is flawed because "it mistakenly asserts that something that is constitutional is also desirable policy". He points out that "to see this mistake, consider that a 90 percent income tax is almost certainly constitutional, but few people think it therefore would be a wise policy" . In this light he argues that a better policy for sensitive library documents is to have significant oversight from the courts.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act,_Title_II#Section_214_and_215

Thus, are the language differences between FISA and the Patriot Act as adopted. PA tends to be broader focused for specific legal reasons and presumably for similar reasons that the AUMF was broadly focused to authorize military force to fight terrorism directed against the United States wherever it might be found.

I am not sure I understand your question about a violation of Section 215 being "excused" by the Constitution.

 

[kbate]

You have to remember that the Patriot Act came after the creation of FISA and that the thrust of the Patriot Act was motivated significantly by the events of 9/11. The following is directly from Wiki, so you may want to assume, based on the rantings of kbate, that every single word is untrue and that those footnote numbers lead only to now defunct web pages displaying "404 errors," but since I'm too dumb to do actual legal research (which I only pretend to understand), this is all you're going to get .

telling everyone that you use wikipedia as your legal intellect is now 'ranting'?

I've never said a thing was "untrue" other than your idiotic OJ simpson example proving somwhow that I don't believe in law against slitting throats.

learn to read you ignorant fuckwit and perhaps you might understand me instead of being stuck in your literal black and white, Me or Them world.