NSA spying is legal because once upon a time Dick Cheney's lawyer said so in secret documents that l

[babsbunny]

NSA spying is legal because once upon a time Dick Cheney's lawyer said so in secret documents that later vanished

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/9/2013/5047

by Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis
June 28, 2013
Throughout the past weeks of revelations regarding the NSA and other agencies spying on millions of Americans, a bipartisan clique of hawks in both the Obama administration and Congress have repeatedly stated that the secret survellance practices are legal. The NSA director, General Keith Alexander, has already lied to Congress once that can be proven, without even a threat of sanction. The UK Guardian has released new documents today that show the legal justification for these survellance was so secret the former NSA director may have never actually read them.

The Guardian released the NSA Inspector General's report on the legalities of certain ongoing wiretap programs. It reveals without a doubt that as time progressed, intelligence gathering on people around the world increased, restrictions relaxed, and successive secret legal opinions normalized and regularized what was originally a secret temporary emergency measure. Federal judges and the vast majority congressional Democrats enthusiastically approved the measures without ever actually examining the legal underpinnings due to the reported success of the programs.

[Catherina]

1. A most excellent piece

I read this last night in LBN when the Columbus Free Press itself posted it.

A most excellent piece. Thank you for re-posting it.

[cantbeserious]

2. RIP Constitution Of The United States of America

[Pholus]

3. "due to the reported success of the programs. "

Oh, the hazards implicit in the words "Trust me."

[reusrename]

4. I can't remember is this story is a lie or if it's old news.

In either event, nothing to see here, just move along folks.

[Columbus Free Press]

5. 3 possibilities

1) You are being sarcastic. If so -----> forgiven
2) This story, which I wrote, is a lie. If so, please point out *where* you think I lied and about *what*. Please support your statement with documentation of some kind.
3) This story is old news. This is clearly untrue as I'm quoting Classified documents leaked on Thursday and the story went up Friday.

It was bad enough that DU saw fit to shut this story down once. First they claimed only "reputable mainstream" articles may be posted in LBN. When I pointed out that we have been in print for 43 years they declared it to be "commentary" rather than news.

Perhaps if I re-wrote the story without the words "Obama" and "Pelosi" it would have passed muster. But then it would not be factual.

Thanks,
Gerry Bello
for the Free Press

[reusrename]

6. Well, a secret court says the secret interpretation of the secret law is legal.

Enough said.

And I had no idea that they don't read the Free Press here, but I'm not shocked at all. Maybe if you got rid of that Bob Fitrakis guy and instead just reprinted those White House releases. I don't know.