General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBush broke the law. President Obama followed it.
People should stop pretending that Obama hasn't implemented safeguards after the abuses under the Bush administration.
Bush came under attack because he bypassed the FISA court and went directly to intentionally spying on Americans. Bush broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979).
The laws passed in light of that discovery did not make spying on Americans without a warrant legal. That is still illegal.
President Obama took the legal route and went through the FISA court.
People also need to stop pretending that the U.S. doesn't have a history of surveillance. Hell, the FISA court was implemented to safeguard against the very kinds of abuses being discussed.
The government has been collecting information for decades. The question has always been whether or not those activities violate the Constitution, even when they are in compliance with existing laws.
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966764
Here is Congressional testimony on another program implemented in 1997.
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of the Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
The Fourth Amendment and Carnivore
July 28, 2000
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) would like to submit comments to be included for the record regarding the Fourth Amendment and the issues raised by the FBI's Carnivore system.
<...>
The Carnivore system has received a lot of press recently, but the FBI has not been forthcoming about how the Carnivore system actually works. Civil liberties groups have often been quoted as noting that Carnivore is a "black box" leaving us to guess at its inner workings.
<...>
Second, analogizing pen register information from a traditional land-line phone system to the Internet is incorrect. The Carnivore system likely can capture content as well as numbers. Email addresses for example are personal to an individual rather than to a particular household. We don't know for sure, but it is possible that Carnivore has access to the subject line information of email messages. Subject lines are content. For example, "leaving work at 5pm today - meet me at the bus stop", contains a lot of information about travel plans of a target on a particular day. Carnivore can also track other content information such as the URLs of web sites visited. Seeing the URLs not only give routing information but content as well. For example, someone visiting www.eff.org could presumably be interested in civil liberties issues online.
<...>
Currently, there is little if any public oversight over the FBI's use of its Carnivore system. The FBI has not allowed the ISP to inspect the device, nor have any of the advocacy groups been allowed to examine it. In fact, the ACLU has had to resort to filing a FOIA request to try to get at the source code. Allowing the FBI to install and use a device such as this unchecked by any public oversight, threatens the openness we enjoy and expect in our society. Robert Corn-Revere, in his testimony, noted that his case is sealed. We can't even look to that for guidance.
- more -
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Carnivore/20000728_eff_house_carnivore.html
By Margret Johnston, PCWorld
Oct 20, 2000 7:00 AM
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is still developing its Carnivore Internet surveillance tool, according to FBI documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
<...>
EPIC filed the FOIA lawsuit after the FBI earlier this year revealed the existence of Carnivore. The lawsuit seeks the public release of all FBI records concerning Carnivore, including the source code, other technical details, and legal analyses addressing the potential privacy implications of the technology. The source code of the Carnivore system was withheld in the first batch of documents (see "Does Carnivore Eat Privacy Rights?" .
Carnivore has outraged not only EPIC, but also the American Civil Liberties Union and some members of Congress. The FBI has used it in at least 25 criminal and national security investigations, according to the FBI, which maintains the system is legal.
The documents in EPIC's hands also confirm that Carnivore was conceived under the name Omnivore in February 1997. It was proposed originally for a Solaris X86 computer. Omnivore was replaced by Carnivore running on a Windows NT-based computer in June 1999. Other parts of the documents include reviews of tests for performance, and recovery from attacks and crashes for both Omnivore and Carnivore. Carnivore consists of a PC running Windows and proprietary software.
- more -
http://www.pcworld.com/article/32664/article.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)#Controversy
Abandoned in 2001, shortly before Bush launched his illegal wiretapping program.
For the Republican opportunists, Bush actually spied on people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557
HELLO WORLD! George W. Bush illegally spied on American citizens. Read all about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022963663
Why The NSAs Secret Online Surveillance Should Scare You
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/07/2120141/why-the-nsas-secret-online-surveillance-should-scare-you/
This whole NSA story is nothing more than recycled outrage. Glenn Greenwald didn't break shit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022967844
What can we all agree on?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969079
Edward Snowden broke the law.
"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178
AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989251
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)inb4 some mindless cut and paste of the 4th amendment.
Sid
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Americans hold the 4th Amendment in high regard. You work on your country's domestic politics, and I'll work on mine. If you have concerns about the US spying on Canada, bring them.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You appear to think the same, given your stated hatred of the 4th Amendment. I don't stand for anyone raping the US Constitution, and as a non-US citizen, if you attack one of the cornerstones upon which my country was founded, you're going to make an enemy of me and anyone in my country who cherishes the Constitution.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)That makes it all fine and dandy. If it's legal, all is wonderful.
Not that we know that.
Furthermore, President Obama has gone back on his word.
Now, to play your silly little linky game- albeit without the bizarre self-referential dogshit. Links do not a persuasive argument make. And that is all you got.
How President Obama Went From Decrying The Surveillance State To Ruling One
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/07/2118781/obama-surveillance-state/
President Obamas Dragnet
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sen. Obama debates President Obama on national surveillance programs
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-obama-debates-president-obama-on-national-surveillance-programs/article/2531515
Obama on Surveillance, Then and Now
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/08/us/politics/08obama-surveillance-history-video.html
How Barack Obama Made Friends With Big Brother
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/06/how-barack-obama-made-friends-with-big-brother.html
Surveillance, secrecy and the cost of intelligence outsourcing
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/11/surveillance-secrecy-and-the-cost-of-intelligence-outsourcing/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
Javaman
(62,534 posts)seems to be that posters pattern.
the poster only attacks the soft targets and not those who are well informed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You shouldn't call out yourself.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)She's the one that refuted you with links, yet you attack me.
Proves my point.
you're a sham.
"LOL so why don't you reply to Cali instead of me?
She's the one that refuted you with links, yet you attack me.
Proves my point.
you're a sham. "
...I did it before responding to you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2991629
And clearly, you can dish it out (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2991549), but you can't take it.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)LOL
my name doesn't appear in any of those links. So I don't know if you just enjoy barking for no reason.
you're childish behavior is just astounding.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You just got pwned
Javaman
(62,534 posts)I don't appear in either of those two links so I don't have any idea what you are talking about?
whatever ever gets you to sleep at night.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Oh, it's you.
Still, thanks for the first link, which makes my point:
Bush came under attack because he bypassed the FISA court and went directly to intentionally spying on Americans. Bush broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979).
Bush was actually wiretapping Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557
Oh, and you failed at the "silly little linky game," but you mastered the self-righteous self-importance with your "dogshit" comment.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Congress just voted to make it "legal" so the Bushies would not go to jail.
"Congress just voted to make it "legal" so the Bushies would not go to jail."
Congress did not vote to make spying on Americans without a warrant legal.
The program started in 2007 does not allow illegal warrantless wiretapping.
They said you have to get a warrant but they kept right on spying, moreso than ever. The warrant from a rubberstamp secret court did not change anything. So now we have legal wiretapping.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Explain how getting a warrant legalizes illegal wiretapping without a warrant and ignores the FISA court?
Bush was actually wiretapping Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557
.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)That is what the Intelligence people say to the President. They do what they want to do. Laws are of little concern to them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Don't worry, we got it under control, Boss...That is what the Intelligence people say to the President. They do what they want to do. Laws are of little concern to them."
...I understand your point. I asked you to explain how getting a warrant legalizes illegal wiretapping without a warrant and ignores the FISA court?
Again, Bush was actually wiretapping Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557
kentuck
(111,111 posts)to cover some asses, does not change the fact that they are spying and wiretapping citizens. Democrats bought the war on terror bullshit - hook, line, and sinker - and went along with making it "legal", so as to protect George W Bush and Dick Cheney.
Do you know for a fact that Americans are not being "wiretapped"? Or do you happen to believe our esteemed leaders?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Just because Congress made the political decision to make it legal...to cover some asses, does not change the fact that they are spying and wiretapping citizens. "
...not a "fact." You're conflating two different programs. Bush's illegal wiretapping of Americans was not and is not legal.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Congress kept amending the laws.
===================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
<snip>
The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping" concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. Critics, however, claimed that it was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and their handling of several hot button issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.
During the Obama Administration, the NSA has officially continued operating under the new FISA guidelines.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified. [4]
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008
<snip>
Warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) was revealed publicly in late 2005 by the New York Times and then discontinued in January 2007.[2] See Letter from Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, CONG. REC. S646-S647 (Jan. 17, 2007).[3] Approximately forty lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by groups and individuals alleging that the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.[4] Whistleblower evidence suggests that AT&T was complicit in the NSA's warrantless surveillance, which could have involved the private communications of millions of Americans.[5] The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 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.[6] 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.[7]
The FISA Amendments Act also added a new Title VII to FISA which contained provisions similar, but not identical, to provisions in the Protect America Act of 2007 which had expired earlier in 2008. The new provisions in Title VII of FISA were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012. On December 29, 2012, the U.S. Senate voted by a margin of 73 to 23 to extend the FISA Amendments Act for five years (until December 31, 2017) which renews the U.S. government's authority to monitor electronic communications of foreigners abroad.[8]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)Perhaps that is where we disagree? Is this not what they are presently doing??
<snip>
Telephone tapping (also wire tapping or wiretapping in American English) is the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Perhaps that is where we disagree? Is this not what they are presently doing??
<snip>
Telephone tapping (also wire tapping or wiretapping in American English) is the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping
..I'm not sure I understand your point. OK, you posted a definition of wiretapping, but that doesn't address the point being discussed. Initially, I asked you to explain how getting a warrant legalizes illegal wiretapping without a warrant and ignores the FISA court?
Again, Bush was actually wiretapping Americans, illegally tapping into conversations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557
No, what Bush did is still illegal, and no that is not "what they are presently doing." You are conflating two different programs.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Oh? Who's doing that, ProSense?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Oh? Who's doing that, ProSense?"
That's likely why you decided to focus on me instead of the topic.
Or are you just pissed because I'm making the point?
"You have to be utterly ignorant of history, in a state of denial, dumb as grits or partisan to the point of mindlessness, to believe that the 16 major national security agencies aren't to some degree or another abusing their powers."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986025
It can't be said too many times: The NSA has been spying on American citizens for decades
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989994
Maybe you should get over yourself.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It's obvious that more and more people are ignoring your pathetic arguments.
"Still trying by peddling bullshit? You really should give it up. It's obvious that more and more people are ignoring your pathetic arguments."
...served a good purpose, to piss you off and lead you to post idiotic drivel.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Has prowhatever ever written anything here without numerous bullshit links?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)If we're so concerned about NSA snooping, then we have a responsibility to call members of Congress and demand, not only a repeal of the Patriot Act, but also that they exercise their oversight function. In addition, if so concerned, pass bills that drastically reduce the president's war powers. Congress has the power to do this, but too many people have made this about Obama and how horrible he is.
So when I started my thread, I started it by attacking the premise "Obama is evil like Bush" that has been shouted around this forum now for several years.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's why any effort to discuss the actual details of this, or any other "Obama outrage", are shouted down.
If you attempt to talk about the details, you'll be called a sycophant or cheerleader.
My sense ... there are contingents on the right and the left who hate the government. Period. The fact that what Bush was doing was illegal and what Obama is doing is legal, and has added safe guards, and oversight by both of the other branches of government, is irrelevant to them ... both on the right and the left.
In addition to coming to DU, I go to a few other sites where the folks commenting are more mixed. In the last three days, I've debated right wingers who also do not care that what the Obama administration is doing is legal, and what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. The right wingers don't care either.
A simple example of how the details matter. ... last night my wife and I were watching Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. My wife has been tied up for the last week in some work stuff, and until that show, she had no idea about any of this NSA discussion, and she and I have not discussed it. I decided to not say anything as she watched the show to see what her take was.
There was one detail that really caught her attention. Greenwald said the FISA court was a rubber stamp court, having had not denied any request in the last year. Later in the show, Lawrence mentioned that fact and on the screen showed that of 1700+ requests made, none were denied. There was no commentary about this, it was just a fact.
My wife started to shake her head. She said ... "wait, out of the 10s of millions of records collected, there were only 1700 requests to FISA? That's all? 1700? If the government was digging around recklessly in that data, and the FISA court was just rubber stamping the requests, there would be WAY more than 1700 requests. 1700 requests is nothing."
Then she said ... "haven't these guys ever watched a police drama? The cops know what kind of evidence they'll need before they even attempt to go get a warrant. You don't go to the judge with insufficient evidence in the first place. Plus, if you go to the judge with insufficient evidence over and over, the judges will start to question everything you bring to them going forward. Isn't it just as likely that all 1700 requests were approved because in reality, the investigators had 5000+ areas they'd like to look into, but only brought forward 1700 for which they had strong enough evidence to be approved in the first place."
Basically, her point was that the FISA court, by its very existence, probably caused the investigators to be more conservative in terms of which cases they sought approval for. And that's why the actual number of approvals is so low.
That possibility had not occurred to me. And you'd think it would have, me being a sycophant and all.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Sadly such facts seem to be ignored here lately. I have never understood how the claim that "they are wiretapping everyone", or "they are tracking us everywhere we go" has found so many believers. Over 300 million people in the U.S. and the are "all" being watched and recorded?
It seems like the same old posters who are always upset with president Obama, have not joined the trolls that come here to stir up trouble, and there seems to be a lot more trolls posting lately who don't eve try and pretend they aren't simple anti Obama!
Now I don't like the idea that we are all being watched anymore than the next person, but reality is that we are NOT all being watched, and there are checks and balances that are in place. True sometimes things could go wrong, but since this has been going on for a long, long time, the odds are small that anyone here who is not doing something wrong would get thrown in jail for no good reason.
All I can say is we better hope people get out and vote for candidates who will help control this kind of thing, because if we sit on or butts and let the tea baggers and republicans end up getting elected in 2014, and then let a republican win in 2016, we can then really start to worry about things.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think part of the goal is to frustrate the folks in the middle, particularly those who lean left.
Get those folks, who already don't pay much attention, to decide the "yea, the government sucks", and so they just give up. Get them to stay home.
Then, get the nutjobs out in force.
That way, even though the crazy right wingers are aging and dying off, they'll still win enough elections to screw things up even more.
Which makes the government less effective, which shrinks the electorate, and more nut jobs make it in to office again. Its a cycle.
I think that's what happened in 2010. And the goal is to repeat it in 2014.
It doesn't work in Presidential election years anymore, but it can still work in the off years.
I have noticed a lot of posts on other boards that sound a lot like Paul supporters talking about "big government", and how the president has ignored the constitution, and there seems to be a whole lot more than usual. I have noticed here that some posts by new posters seem to be repeating the Paul talking points. I think Rand Paul may be worse than his father when it comes to trying to con people with their BS.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)lol never mind...
Laelth
(32,017 posts)No doubt about it. The practices and policies of Obama's NSA are much more legal and proper, as I would expect from a Democratic administration. What Obama's NSA is doing is legal, but that does not make it right, nor does that make it Constitutional. We really need some new guidance on this issue from the SCOTUS. Some form of appeal process needs to be written into the FISA law in order to give the SCOTUS a chance to rule on it.
Repealing the Patriot Act, in toto, is highly unlikely. I wouldn't even want to repeal the FISA Act. That was our idea, and it was a good law until it got amended (and abrogated, in part) by the Patriot Act.
I think we need leadership on this issue. Somebody has got to stand up for the 4th Amendment. If not the President, then who? It is not persuasive for the President to simply argue, "I'm just following the law. If you want the law changed, talk to your Congressperson." That feels like a dodge to me.
We can do better.
-Laelth
We need to make sure those who get elected into congress next year, and 2016, and not the Rand Paul loonies, tea bagger radicals, or republican war mongers. Sitting home and not voting like happened with many in 2010 is not an option if we want things to change, or if we want to make sure things don't get any worse.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Repealing the Patriot Act, in toto, is highly unlikely. I wouldn't even want to repeal the FISA Act. That was our idea, and it was a good law until it got amended (and abrogated, in part) by the Patriot Act. "
...is the secrecy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022993363
bushisanidiot
(8,064 posts).
Pholus
(4,062 posts)The problem isn't that laws were broken, its a little bit weird that you didnt have to.
So keep holding up that fig leaf!
ForeignandDomestic
(190 posts)So this is what the Democrat party has become....
Celebrate that the illegal actions of Bush and company are now legal for Obama to put into practice?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So this is what the Democrat party has become.... Celebrate that illegal actions of Bush and company are now legal for Obama to put into practice?"
...that's reading comprehension failure and a lack of grasp on the facts. No one is celebrating the "illegal actions of Bush," and those actions are still not legal.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)It's ok because Obama has "safeguards" and can be trusted. The fact that this program needs "safeguards" tells me it's bad news.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If the White House didn't block judicial review of their position (based on the notion that no one can bring suit since no single individual can prove they're be spied on), it might very well be officially illegal, since it's pretty obviously in conflict with the 4th Amendment.
But I guess that's all it takes now. Just a lawyerly excuse-- like John Woo pronouncing torture legal and giving cover to a criminal Executive.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I think the WH is also using the old "National Security" fallback to keep blocking the judicial review of this..
I just posted an OP that tries to take the debate in a different direction.
I give it 10 minutes before my point(that spying doesn't work or make us safer) is drowned in a sea of angry blue links.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)have we followed the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and other places?