True or False - the Obama Administration has gotten warrants for their surveillance?

[el_bryanto]

4 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	True
	3 (75%)
	False
	1 (25%)
	The reality is somewhere in between
	0 (0%)
	What is True is that this is another bullshit poll.
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[lamp_shade]

1. Expect some to vote "false".

[lamp_shade]

15. Tolja

[Laelth]

2. True, without question.

Now, whether those warrants are unconstitutionally broad is another, more important question, but the Obama Administration has gotten wide-open, blanket warrants (every three months or so) to collect all the data it can possibly collect.

-Laelth

[leftstreet]

3. How would DUers know the answer to this question?

How many DUers are high-level cabinet officials?

Dumb loyalty oath poll

[el_bryanto]

6. Should I have stated "Has it been reported that the Obama administration

has gotten warrants?"

Would that solve the problem?

I don't intend it as a loyalty oath poll. While I lean a bit towards the administration side of things, frankly I haven't settled this in my mind yet.

[leftstreet]

10. Maybe, "Do you trust the gvt & media reports?" n/t

[el_bryanto]

14. Seems like that might end up being a push poll as well

I'm fairly certain that the majority of people at DU - even some of those that are ok with this PRISM Program - would answer negatively.

Bryant

[Yo_Mama]

4. False - because a warrant for everyone's information is not a warrant as defined constutionally

That's all I have to say about it, and that's all I ever will have to say about. What's wrong is wrong, whether it happens under a Democratic president or a Republican president.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Trick question: No warrants are required for domestic wiretapping and surveillance.

Bush administration warrantless domestic wiretapping program
Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article[5] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002; a subsequent Bloomberg article[6] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Bush_administration_warrantless_domestic_wiretapping_program

[el_bryanto]

9. That's my question isn't it?

I was very opposed to the Bush program because their was no oversight. I wasn't opposed to the idea of surveillance or wiretapping in all cases, there might well be cases where it is necessary. But in the Bush Case there was no oversight.

Is there oversight in the Obama case?

Bryant

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Considering that the FBI and DHS lied about having spied upon Occupy from day one

I'd say it's thus a bit more likely than not that they're spying on everyone, all the time. Fusion Centers store and spread the data.

[Quantess]

7. Question is open to interpretation.

"probably some of them" entails both yes and no.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Unknown.

And probably impossible to know one way or the other conclusively.

[Catherina]

12. False. No warrants. Just a huge sucking sound.

...

So, what did the leaks tell us? First, they confirmed that the U.S. government, without obtaining any court warrants, routinely collects the phone logs of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Americans, who have no links to terrorism whatsoever. If the publicity prompts Congress to prevent phone companies such as Verizon and A.T. & T. from acting as information-gathering subsidiaries of the spying agencies, it won’t hamper legitimate domestic-surveillance operations—the N.S.A. can always go to court to obtain a wiretap or search warrant—and it will be a very good thing for the country.

The second revelation in the leaks was that the N.S.A., in targeting foreign suspects, has the capacity to access vast amounts of user data from U.S.-based Internet companies such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Skype. Exactly how this is done remains a bit murky. But it’s clear that, in the process of monitoring the communications of overseas militants and officials and the people who communicate with them, the N.S.A. sweeps up a great deal of online data about Americans, and keeps it locked away—seemingly forever.

...

Another Snowden leak, which Greenwald and the Guardian published over the weekend, was a set of documents concerning another secret N.S.A. tracking program with an Orwellian name: “Boundless Informant.” Apparently designed to keep Snowden’s former bosses abreast of what sorts of data it was collecting around the world, the program unveiled the vast reach of the N.S.A.’s activities. In March, 2013, alone, the Guardian reported, the N.S.A. collected ninety-seven billion pieces of information from computer networks worldwide, and three billion of those pieces came from U.S.-based networks.

...

Thanks to Snowden, and what he told the Guardian and the Washington Post, we now have cause to doubt the truth of this testimony. In Snowden’s words: “The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/why-edward-snowden-is-a-hero.html?mbid=social_mobile_tweet

[George Gently]

13. They got a search warrant based on probable cause for Rosen's emails and

without question, they have obtained warrants for lots and lots and many, many surveillances.

It is not a true or false question.

The collection of this data does not require a warrant.

Acting on what they have collected requires a warrant.

[leftyohiolib]

16. since fisa denied only 12 requests out of 30 000 why wouldnt he-it's little more than a rubber stamp

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. The government asking the government for warrants...

Works for some people, I guess.

Last year not ONE FISA request was turned down. Rubber stamp is what that sounds like to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. True. But, without probable cause.

[zipplewrath]

19. Probably shoulda had a FISA warrant option

This FISA court is just short of a rubber stamp. Which makes the ethical "cover" it provides about as impressive as Bush's cover with the Torture Memos from Justice.