NSA performed warrantless searches on Americans' calls and emails – Clapper

[Tony_FLADEM]

US intelligence chiefs have confirmed that the National Security Agency has used a "back door" in surveillance law to perform warrantless searches on Americans’ communications.

The NSA's collection programs are ostensibly targeted at foreigners, but in August the Guardian revealed a secret rule change allowing NSA analysts to search for Americans' details within the databases.

Now, in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has confirmed for the first time the use of this legal authority to search for data related to “US persons”.

“There have been queries, using US person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-US persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” Clapper wrote in the letter, which has been obtained by the Guardian.

“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”

The legal authority to perform the searches, revealed in top-secret NSA documents provided to the Guardian by Edward Snowden, was denounced by Wyden as a “backdoor search loophole.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data?CMP=fb_gu

[progressoid]

1. pfft. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. Clapper says..'If I did anything wrong I stll have

nothing to worry about."

[rhett o rick]

2. But be assured that's all they did. nm

[riderinthestorm]

3. Well this is conveniently falling off the page isn't it?

Where are all the usuals telling us this is NOT a problem!!11!!! Its only metadata!!11!!!

Or something...



K&R

[BelgianMadCow]

15. because this isn't about metadata?

was my first thought as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Wait, they did what they said they did not, cross their hearts and all that.

This will go a long way in ensuring trust in the Federal government, after all, this must be for our own good.

Old adage, if they swear up and down they have not done something, you can bet they have.

[truebrit71]

5. But everyone already assumed they were doing this so it's not that big a deal...

...Or something...

[msanthrope]

6. And? Did no one understand this was exactly what was passed in 2008 and reauthorized in

2012?

I get that Wyden wants to call it a "loophole" but that's a pretty inartful observation on an actual law.

[JDPriestly]

9. They could easily have gotten a warrant.

This is a huge power play by the NSA. It violates the Constitution. Any law passed in violation of the Constitution is null and void. If the NSA is only doing this in support of a terrorism investigation, it can easily get a warrant.

There is no excuse for this.

The current very conservative Supreme Court might approve, but I assure you that we will either lose our Constitution -- just void it by practices that ignore it -- or require the NSA to get warrants based on probable cause.

The NSA is not complying with the law to establish that it is above the law. That is wrong.

Clapper did not disclose how many warrantless searches had been performed by the NSA.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data?CMP=fb_gu

Anyone who has looked at the phone bills and financial records of other people know how much information is really revealed. The NSA's conduct is appalling.

What bothers me the most is that there is no record made available to one whose records are reviewed with regard to who did the review, what was reviewed, what the results or conclusion of the review were. Information assumed based on a review of a person's records could be used for any person for any purpose. The repercussions could and one day assuredly will be horrendous.

Too much information about individuals that is left to be interpreted by who knows who. It's an appalling mess just waiting to happen.

If someone from the government is reading my phone bill, I should have the right to know about that. And if, based on the information from my phone bill, I am characterized as a danger or some menace or having contact with terrorists, I should be able to defend myself against that serious charge. It's highly unlikely at the age of 70 in my social milieu that those things would happen with regard to me, but it is not unlikely that those things could happen to someone just as innocent as me.

[neverforget]

13. I was told on this board 2 weeks ago that I was a Libertarian and Obama hater because I

supported my Senator Wyden. I don't understand why people are so vociferous in their defense of this BS. "It's only metadata, we all knew this, Snowden and Greenwald are Libertarians, blah, blah, blah."

Remember that the FISA court judges are appointed by Republican Chief Justice John Roberts AND the court only hears the governments side for warrants. Currently, there is no one there to advocate for the other side. Senator Wyden wants that included in the NSA reforms Obama proposed.

[msanthrope]

17. You are incorrect on many fronts. Section 702 of FISA is presumptively constitutional

as there has been no significant court action that would indicate that it is not.

The NSA does not need a warrant for any information when it's acting outside of the United States. For example, if you call someone in Europe who is currently being monitored by the NSA, no warrant is needed to intercept information regarding that call.

Would a warrant be needed to then be needed to wiretap your American based phone? Yes, provided there was not an immediate national security issue that simply could not wait for court review but would be later subject to court review. Would I need a warrant to obtain your phone bills? No.

Phone bills and financial records generally fall under the third party business rule exception to the Fourth Amendment. The NSA not only does not need a warrant... no law enforcement agency does.

If you wish that changed... then only Congress can pass the legislation that would override Smith v. Maryland.

[cprise]

49. 'Would I need a warrant to obtain your phone bills?' First-person example?

That's a really odd way to put it, IMO. You sound like you work for them.

[cprise]

50. That's a conspicuously false interpretation, BTW

There is nothing in the constitution that diminishes expectation of privacy just because more than two people are involved. Its just more abusive rationalization stuffed into the word "reasonable".

And the last time I checked, most Internet and telecom providers were "private" entities.

As outdated and vague as the Constitution is, one condition that the authors did not place on it was secrecy. The people are able to read it and have called "bullsh*t" on the current state of affairs.

[msanthrope]

51. "There's nothing in the Constitution" is lazy speak for "I'm not

interested in looking at the 200 plus years of jurisprudence that have come after the Constitution."

The right to travel, abortion and equal marriage aren't in the Constitution either. Do you really think your fundamental rights are based solely on a single document?

[cprise]

53. Just who is being lazy?

You speak of jurisprudence quite ironically, as if legal precedent covering phone taps and pen registers for much of the 20th century had nothing to do with the subject.

The right to travel, abortion and equal marriage aren't in the Constitution either. Do you really think your fundamental rights are based solely on a single document?

They are also protected under the ninth amendment to begin with; It is not up to government to spell them all out, nor to claim they are granting new rights when inappropriate restrictions on personal liberty are struck down.

Also, legal precedents can be unconstitutional, even if they hew against the constitution only incrementally.

What we now have, unfortunately, is a political and legal culture that maximizes government power to spy, disrupt and punish (wantonly, in fact) non-white and lower-class people on the one hand, and minimizes its involvement in financial matters and promoting the general welfare. This cultural crisis may be more important than the legalisms that surround it.

[msanthrope]

54. Google my username and Smith v. Maryland

and you'll see that I've already written extensively on 20th century jurisprudence regarding warrants and pen registers.

The 9th amendment doesn't mention abortion, the right to travel or equal marriage..... so when you make a facile claim that something isn't "in" the Constitution, and therefore that makes it unconstitutional, I'm going to take you at your word that that's exactly what you meant.

FYI the 9th amendment is a fairly poor legal argument.... It doesn't get much of anywhere without the 5th or the 14th.

[cprise]

55. Now I know you're arguing in bad faith for the surveillance state

You are supposedly a professional but are purposely misrepresenting the Constitution. The federal government doesn't have 'rights' unless they are spelled out in the Constitution, but for individuals it is almost the exact opposite situation. Individuals' rights don't have to be enumerated, while government powers do.

I won't assume that you're too dim to remember the difference between a person and the federal government, so I'll kindly ask you to stop the misinformation campaign.

[msanthrope]

56. If you think I am dim, why engage me on this thread and others? You seem to be

personalizing this.... which I understand since you aren't able to explain exactly how section 702 is unconstitutional.

[randome]

58. No, the 'bad faith' is yours.

msanthrope is calmly and accurately engaging in a discussion. While you want to sling mud and aspersions as in your post below.

Who is the intellectually lazy one here?

Congratulations on derailing another DU debate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Pholus]

20. Must be reading different stories here...

Note the title. No clean hands there....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

But it's okay, we all know what a "terrorist" is so obviously this is okay that that label is enough to justify warrantless searches.

A terrorist, after all, is an anti-war nun. Or someone complaining about the water supply, or protesting inhumane livestock conditions.

[msanthrope]

21. No..we aren't. And the examples you give... care to give an actual case? nt

[Pholus]

22. Bwahahahaha! Me and whose "Top Secret Clearance?"

Wow. You can thank your GOOD FRIEND and ALLY on the Supremes, Samuel Alito for your fig leaf:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_journalists_have_no_standing_to_challenge_foreign_surveillance_law_

But please go on. I believe the next thing you're required to say is that metadata alone can't possibly be used to point out who is talking to journalists, who is seeking psychological help, who has medical conditions, who talks to dealers and prostitutes and bookies, who belongs to what political party and religion.

Authoritarian "in-jokes" crack me up.

[msanthrope]

23. Again--do you have an actual person, or are you merely speculating? As I actually agree with the

dissent in Clapper with regards to standing, I am not sure why you are accusing me of paling around with Samuel Alito.

[Pholus]

47. Hard to name names when intelligence is routinely "laundered" isn't it?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

[delrem]

52. That's quite some sequence of three links, Pholus. Thank you.

[bobduca]

24. Serious subthread

is serious!!!11

on edit your username is one of the most accurate I've ever seen at DU. Good job!

[msanthrope]

25. Insulting me about my username is rather unoriginal. I expected better. nt

[bobduca]

26. You chose it, and choose to display your misanthropy in almost every post

own it

[msanthrope]

27. why not have the courage to call me what you really want to? I think your anger is misplaced on

this particular thread. I suspect that you are rather upset with me given my reply to will's apology thread. That is unfortunate, but if you wish to dispute the facts I listed...we should doso in that thread.

[bobduca]

29. I havent read your reply to Will, cuz you are on ignore

You are the one loyalist who pulled the short straw and decided to launch into a full-throated defense of the NSA's illegal wiretapping on this thread!

"My anger"? Lol project much, O thou brave defender of the secret Roberts FISA court?

[msanthrope]

30. OMG...this is DUzy worthy.....

29. I havent read your reply to Will, cuz you are on ignore

Is this a new feature on DU? A floating ignore?

[bobduca]

31. It's called "incognito mode" I check it on NSA threads

So I can get a chuckle at the latest authoritarian apologist party-line.

It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that some badge-sniffing boot-lickers are keeping DU'ers in line.

[msanthrope]

33. OMG...that's even funnier! You cruise DU "incognito" to read the people you

have on ignore?

I bet Agent Mike isn't fooled, though....best watch out!

[bobduca]

35. HAHAHA I GET IT "AGENT MIKE" ITS FUNNY CUZ PARANOID AND STUFF

No to make it clear, you are on ignore because I find your contributions to DU to always err on the side of NSA Apologia.

Right Wing Racists also justified the bush administration's whitewashing of Iraq, Torture and raping of the commons. Not saying you are a Right-Winger at all, just that your arguments remind me of arguments made by right-wingers who happened to be racists also within the Bush Administration.

[msanthrope]

38. No...it's funny because you are insisting that I am on ignore, when

clearly you are doing anything but ignoring me. But hey I don't want to be judgmental here.... if your iggy list is more or less conceptual as opposed to actual, who am I to judge?

This subthread is hysterical.

[bobduca]

39. Hey its not against the rules and I enjoy telling you that on most threads i dont see your posts

But hey hysterical subthreads, that's your goal right? to distract and pull attention away from subjects like the OP?

Cos-playing an NSA Apologist on DU is hard work! what a brave patriot!

PS I read your reply to Will and it sucked, and was full of the nastiness I've come to expect from you.

[msanthrope]

40. Cos-playing?? Dear jeebus, are you actually imagining what I'm wearing?

I do not understand. You think my goal is distraction then why engage with me? By your own admission it is you who were incognito cruising looking to engage me.

[bobduca]

41. Well your honor

[font size=6]PLONK[/font]

[msanthrope]

42. Am I back on ignore?? Really ignore, or just virtual ignore? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. But she's an attorney, so when she utters legalese we have to shut up because freedom.

Lawyers are both smart and trustworthy--just ask around.

[bobduca]

36. I have heard this to be the case, I shall reconsider my once-strongly held bias against the NSA n/t

[cprise]

57. I think that screen name may be more than one person

...either that or its some bot that can parse the conversation like an 'Eliza' program without understanding the gist of what people are saying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. They were doing it, and lying about it, to protect us....from ourselves.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants. Albert Camus

[Demo_Chris]

8. Let's be clear, they no longer feel restricted by any law or constitutional limits. nt

[GoneFishin]

10. Absolutely correct. They are limited only by technology. They will do whatever they want. Snoop

first and worry about getting caught later. Just kidding about the worrying part, nothing ever happens to them when they get caught.

[nilram]

12. Oh, they're obeying the law. It just happens to be a secret law,

adjudicated by a secret court... with a secret rubber stamp.

[Maedhros]

11. And why has the President not asked for Clapper's resignation?

He has admitted lying to Senators from the President's own party. Does Obama have any respect for the institution of which he was recently a member?

[xiamiam]

14. good question which has no justifiable answer..nt

[pragmatic_dem]

43. It is the same reason there is no reform at CIA, no reform at SEC, and why Monsanto runs the FDA

Obama doesn't want to rock the boat. NSA could skull fk Mother Teresa and Clapper would get the medal of freedom award and the apologists would still be here telling us all M. Teresa deserved it because NSA is keeping us safe from socialists.

[Maedhros]

45. I suppose this could be characterized as a fundamental conflict between pragmatism

and political courage.

IMHO, we need more of the latter and less of the former, since "pragmatism " has become something of a dog-whistle for "preserving the status quo"...which is Conservatism.

[pragmatic_dem]

46. cons have abused the word pragmatic, they shouldn't get it back til they learn to use it properly nt

[Rex]

16. A weak Congress is an easy target, just ask the CIA.

nt.

[Fumesucker]

18. And a corrupt Congress is an even easier target

You could dig up J Edgar Hoover and ask him.

[Pholus]

19. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!! That bastard Snowden's accusations confirmed true --- YET AGAIN.

but who is keeping score -- I lost count and the apologists really have reasons to not want to remember.

[Savannahmann]

32. There is the letter of the law

Then there is the spirit. It always astounds me how many people ignore the spirit of the law while pointing to the letter.

[bobduca]

37. K&R

apologies for the serious subthread.

[Jesus Malverde]

44. Stasi chief clapper needs to go...nt

[malaise]

48. Has he resigned yet? n/t