Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
12. I admit I didn't read your whole post. After seeing all your LOLs and totally rude
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:28 PM
Mar 2014

and ridiculous posts I simply do not feel you deserve it. But here you go... hope it clears some things up for you.

EDIT: ACLU source coming...


Fact Checking Obama's Misleading Answer About Warrantless Wiretapping on The Daily Show

On last Thursday’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart boldly went where no mainstream reporter has gone so far this election cycle: asking President Barack Obama why has he embraced Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program after campaigning against it on civil liberties grounds. While Stewart’s question was commendable, Obama’s answer was puzzling because it seems so obviously untrue.

Stewart first reminded Obama of his Bush-era statements that “we don’t have to trade our values and ideals for our security,” and pointedly asked the President, “do you still believe that?” He then specifically raised warrantless wiretapping, which Obama frequently criticized as a presidential candidate in 2008:

STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.

OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.

To the contrary, there’s no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping program—which includes a warrantless dragnet on millions of innocent Americans’ communications—has significantly changed from the day Obama took office. With regard to the FISA Amendments Act, the Obama Administration has actively opposed all proposed safeguards in Congress. All the while, his Administration has been even more aggressive than President Bush in trying to prevent warrantless wiretapping victims from having their day in court and has continued building the massive national security infrastructure needed to support it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/fact-check-obamas-misleading-answer-about-warrantless-wiretapping-daily-show



Government Engages In Shell Game To Avoid Review Of Warrantless Wiretapping
By Patrick C. Toomey, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project at 3:51pm

Less than a year ago, the government convinced the Supreme Court to dismiss the ACLU's constitutional challenge to the FISA Amendments Act (FAA)—the controversial warrantless wiretapping statute that is the legal basis for the PRISM program—because our clients couldn't prove that they had been monitored under it. The government repeatedly assured the court that such a restrictive view of who could challenge the law would not forever prevent court review, because criminal defendants who were prosecuted based on evidence obtained under the FAA would be informed of such and would then be able to challenge the statute. Based in part on this assurance, the Supreme Court in February of this year dismissed the case, Clapper v. Amnesty, in a 5–4 vote.

But now that the case is closed, we are learning that the government's assurances that it would notify criminal defendants of its reliance on surveillance under the FAA were not what they seemed. Here's one example of the government unequivocally assuring the Supreme Court, in its brief, that criminal defendants would receive notice of FAA surveillance and an opportunity to challenge the statute:

If the government intends to use or disclose any information obtained or derived from its acquisition of a person's communications under [the FAA] in judicial or administrative proceedings against that person, it must provide advance notice of its intent to the tribunal and the person, whether or not the person was targeted for surveillance under [the FAA].

In response to questions from the justices at oral argument, the government reiterated this position. Never mind that the government had not notified one criminal defendant about this type of evidence in the five years since the warrantless wiretapping program was written into law.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the government's position—but, using language almost identical to that in the brief, it highlighted the government's duty to "provide advance notice of its intent" to "use or disclose information obtained or derived" from FAA surveillance. The court plainly took the government's representations at face value, and it concluded that a criminal proceeding would offer an alternative avenue for testing the legality of the FAA's warrantless wiretapping program.

What we have learned since the Clapper decision, however, has revealed a yawning chasm between the government's words and actions. Faced with recent revelations about the FAA surveillance program, intelligence officials have raced to defend the controversial law. And, in doing so, they have touted at least four cases where warrantless FAA surveillance was purportedly critical to preempting terrorist plots. Yet not one of the defendants in these prosecutions was told that the government's evidence was obtained from FAA surveillance, and thus they had no opportunity to challenge the statute. This fact runs directly contrary to the arguments that lawyers for the government paraded before the Supreme Court just last fall.

Indeed, the government has openly departed from its previous position. Criminal defendants in Chicago and Florida have filed motions seeking to compel the government to provide notice of its intent to rely on evidence obtained from warrantless wiretapping under the FAA, yet the government is now arguing that it has no obligation to do so. This amounts to a remarkable about-face. These particular defendants have particularly good reason to ask whether evidence against them was obtained under the FAA: In December, Senator Feinstein referenced their cases in testimony urging Congress to reauthorize the FAA's surveillance program. Despite this testimony, the government is fighting the defendants' efforts to understand where the evidence against them has come from, and even told the court that it has no obligation to tell criminal defendants like those in the Florida case whether its evidence came from a warrantless interception of communications under the FAA or from more traditional foreign intelligence surveillance.

The distinction is crucially important, because without adequate notice defendants may never know they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping. And, without that, despite the government's guarantees to the Supreme Court, a defendant would have no basis to bring the type of constitutional challenge that would finally test the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-engages-shell-game-avoid-review-warrantless-wiretapping



New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance
By Naomi Gilens, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 1:32pm

Justice Department documents released today by the ACLU reveal that federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring Americans’ electronic communications, and doing so without warrants, sufficient oversight, or meaningful accountability.

The documents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation, are the attorney general’s 2010 and 2011 reports on the use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” surveillance powers. The reports show a dramatic increase in the use of these surveillance tools, which are used to gather information about telephone, email, and other Internet communications. The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government’s surveillance power. (Our original Freedom of Information Act request and our legal complaint are online.)

Pen register and trap and trace devices are powerfully invasive surveillance tools that were, twenty years ago, physical devices that attached to telephone lines in order to covertly record the incoming and outgoing numbers dialed. Today, no special equipment is required to record this information, as interception capabilities are built into phone companies’ call-routing hardware.

Pen register and trap and trace devices now generally refer to the surveillance of information about—rather than the contents of—communications. Pen registers capture outgoing data, while trap and trace devices capture incoming data. This still includes the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing telephone calls and the time, date, and length of those calls. But the government now also uses this authority to intercept the “to” and “from” addresses of email messages, records about instant message conversations, non-content data associated with social networking identities, and at least some information about the websites that you visit (it isn't entirely clear where the government draws the line between the content of a communication and information about a communication when it comes to the addresses of websites).

Electronic Surveillance Is Sharply on the Rise

The reports that we received document an enormous increase in the Justice Department’s use of pen register and trap and trace surveillance. As the chart below shows, between 2009 and 2011 the combined number of original orders for pen registers and trap and trace devices used to spy on phones increased by 60%, from 23,535 in 2009 to 37,616 in 2011.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase



Obama authorizes five more years of warrantless wiretapping
Published time: December 31, 2012 17:14

Congress had only up until the end of 2012 to either reauthorize FISA and the FAA, or let the bill expire. Despite a large grassroots campaign from privacy advocates and civil liberties organization to ensure the acts would fade from history, though, the Senate approved a five-year extension of the legislation on Friday. Just two days later, Pres. Obama signed his name to the act, opening up the inboxes and phone records of US citizens to the federal government until at least 2018.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-fisa-faa-signed-143/

Thanks...Agree wholeheartedly Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #1
Absolutely frazzled Mar 2014 #2
Damn Straight we can, blm. thank you. Cha Mar 2014 #3
I agree, 100%. But the fools who criticize Obama think Obama created the NSA's PRISM machine... Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #4
But the smart people who criticize Obama know that he expanded BushCo's illegal spying cui bono Mar 2014 #10
And furthermore, they elected him with the expectation that he would put an end to Demeter Mar 2014 #36
You think power is accrued that easily in DC, Demeter? blm Mar 2014 #46
So Spit It Out... Do We, Or Do We Not... Live In A Democratic Republic ??? WillyT Mar 2014 #74
You believe he's been apprised of everything CIA/NSA has been doing, even by private firms selected blm Mar 2014 #79
If that is so... grasswire Mar 2014 #104
Doesn't everybody have that obligation? Why didn't Carter? Clinton? Gore? blm Mar 2014 #105
What have you done? nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #56
His timing seems suspect Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #5
Good post. However.... rlegro Mar 2014 #34
Have to pull your coat brush Mar 2014 #60
We have similar views. Skidmore Mar 2014 #6
+1000. winter is coming Mar 2014 #7
I agree that it's not about Snowden. I respectfully disagree .... Scuba Mar 2014 #8
These ProSense Mar 2014 #13
It looks to me like these agencies look upon Obama as a modest irritant. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #76
Certainly this would lead you to that conclusion .... Scuba Mar 2014 #77
Pretty much the way I see it. blm Mar 2014 #82
The alternative? He doesn't know. Hardly reassuring... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #92
This OP is just a round about way of defending Obama cui bono Mar 2014 #9
Completely ProSense Mar 2014 #11
I admit I didn't read your whole post. After seeing all your LOLs and totally rude cui bono Mar 2014 #12
You are using breitbart.com as a source? Skidmore Mar 2014 #14
Oops! You are right, I shouldn't do that! It was an accident. cui bono Mar 2014 #16
Breitbart? ProSense Mar 2014 #17
I've acknkowledged and corrected that error. cui bono Mar 2014 #19
I posted the provisions of the amendment and you post spin about it. ProSense Mar 2014 #20
I told you, after seeing mostly LOLs and rude posts trying to ridicule people with no substance cui bono Mar 2014 #22
Thanks for knocking down the bullshit spin, ProSense.. I don't read those posts Cha Mar 2014 #28
*sputter* Number23 Mar 2014 #51
.. Cha Mar 2014 #54
Obama voted to give retroactive immunity to telecoms OnyxCollie Mar 2014 #21
This unfortunate "accident" Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #68
Prove that statement with links to quotes of mine. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #96
LOL - I think Obama's is one of the weakest presidencies in modern history. I think you must blm Mar 2014 #38
What's made it so weak in your opinion? Repub obstructionism or the goals set by the admin? Number23 Mar 2014 #52
Both - I think getting along with opposition party should have been shelved as a goal blm Mar 2014 #70
Obama went back to getting warrants treestar Mar 2014 #58
He pushed to make the illegal activity of BushCo legal. cui bono Mar 2014 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #62
This argument is getting shopworn.. sendero Mar 2014 #95
I think you replied to the wrong post. I agree with what you said. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #97
My apologies.. sendero Mar 2014 #103
OMG!!! A voice of reason!!! I can't take it. kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #15
+ a million Number23 Mar 2014 #26
The President consistently defended NSA overreach . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #18
Not correct. He spoke about it 10 days before Snowden's leaks. stevenleser Mar 2014 #24
Thanks steven for your detailed response to Cha Mar 2014 #32
That's not true. As I observed he was hearing the extent of SOME of it as we were. blm Mar 2014 #39
I don't think they see the big picture Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #65
And recently, NSA whistleblower Russ Tice. blm Mar 2014 #88
You make important points in your post that most of us who keep posting KoKo Mar 2014 #90
I agree. I wish there WAS a way for Dems to accrue the power base needed to confront this blm Mar 2014 #94
if his presidency is that weakened, then he has little to lose grasswire Mar 2014 #106
I agree - and do so from the comfort of my world OUTSIDE the actual arena. blm Mar 2014 #109
No, the point is to force you to stop pretending such and go after the ones with the power TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #107
Clinton accrued more power in his tenure than Obama has and STILL won't confront them. blm Mar 2014 #108
Excuses to continue the pretense. Push them to lawfully take the power or prove that it TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #111
I agree - Fvck the excuses - say those of us lefties who choose to stay out of the arena blm Mar 2014 #112
so tell us, what were his motives? frylock Mar 2014 #23
My Question is...what the hell can we do about it? fascisthunter Mar 2014 #25
we continue to pressure congress.. frylock Mar 2014 #27
and it's why dialogue on DU about this is so important fascisthunter Mar 2014 #29
word frylock Mar 2014 #30
Except, what has been happening on DU lately has not Skidmore Mar 2014 #31
It's Why I made the Statement fascisthunter Mar 2014 #33
It needs to start with acknowledging that not everyone shares Skidmore Mar 2014 #40
That's True fascisthunter Mar 2014 #42
Perfectly said. Number23 Mar 2014 #53
Who said we're cool with it? Strawmen builders? blm Mar 2014 #41
getting attention treestar Mar 2014 #59
Congratulations! delrem Mar 2014 #61
because the whines about lying, credibility, etc, are silly stupidicus Mar 2014 #35
Plenty of Snowden contradictions in your post. blm Mar 2014 #43
more silliness doesn't help your cause stupidicus Mar 2014 #47
LOL - whatever. You can fully trust Snowden's motives - I do not. blm Mar 2014 #48
thanks for conceding your silliness in the example cited stupidicus Mar 2014 #49
There are plenty of contradictions in all of Snowden's pronoucements.. he said Cha Mar 2014 #57
Keep in mind there would be no 'greater media scrutiny' to applaud without Snowden n/t whatchamacallit Mar 2014 #37
Which is exactly what I wrote in my post. Keep in mind everything else, too. There is ONE family blm Mar 2014 #44
Indeed. I keep waiting for Jebbie to quit being coy. Skidmore Mar 2014 #45
"the last few decades of BushInc" include 6 yrs of ObamaInc., 8 yrs of ClintonInc. delrem Mar 2014 #50
LOL - Apparently you never heard of Poppy Bush or his privatization of intel and blm Mar 2014 #69
So your message, complete with a "LOL" aimed at me, delrem Mar 2014 #71
I think you don't 'get' it at all. It would take you months to get through the full BCCI report blm Mar 2014 #72
You are saying NOTHING. Responding to NOTHING. Not even to defend your own OP. delrem Mar 2014 #73
I feel that if you can't wrap your brain around what was said, only focused research can help you blm Mar 2014 #78
Has NOTHING to back up your apologetics for Obama's impotence. delrem Mar 2014 #80
You are acting as apologist for the rampant lack of knowledge about the presidency and blm Mar 2014 #81
The BCCI report gives NO excuse for Obama, or any other president, to claim powerlessness delrem Mar 2014 #83
You're showing you're vastly under-informed. Get thee to National Security Archives, and.... blm Mar 2014 #85
You're showing that all you can do is throw shit at a wall, delrem Mar 2014 #86
I do - but when one is in an exchange with someone unrealistic about the presidency blm Mar 2014 #87
. delrem Mar 2014 #91
OK, that was a pleasant hiatus. delrem Mar 2014 #93
Bingo. nt ecstatic Mar 2014 #55
K & R for nuance. The NSA/CIA thing goes well beyond Obama BelgianMadCow Mar 2014 #63
People forget about NSA whistleblower Russ Tice. blm Mar 2014 #89
Sure, but which REALLY matters in the real world? Fearless Mar 2014 #64
The media's interest begins and ends with Snowden's usefulness as a Benghazi. ucrdem Mar 2014 #66
Excellent OP Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #67
I could halfway buy that if the majority of the same people attacking Snowden Zorra Mar 2014 #75
k&r this from your post questionseverything Mar 2014 #101
great post fascisthunter Mar 2014 #102
I think the debate has been good for the country. leftyladyfrommo Mar 2014 #84
YUP ... you can be sure there are Bushies still JoePhilly Mar 2014 #99
I've been saying that from the beginning leftynyc Mar 2014 #100
You can do whatever you want PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #110
K&R n/t bobthedrummer Mar 2014 #113
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We can applaud media's gr...»Reply #12