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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We can applaud media's greater NSA scrutiny AND think that Snowden's resume/timing/motives [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)17. Breitbart?
To the contrary, theres no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping programwhich includes a warrantless dragnet on millions of innocent Americans communicationshas 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
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/fact-check-obamas-misleading-answer-about-warrantless-wiretapping-daily-show
This has nothing to do with Bush's illegal program. Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
Specifically, the Act:[19]
- Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
- Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
- Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]
- Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]
- Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]
- Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
- Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
- Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
- Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval. [22]
- Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
- Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
- Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
- Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year
- The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.[citation needed]
- Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours[21]
Here is a fact that even Snowden's legal reps understand:
Our Chat With Edward Snowdens Legal Counsel
<...>
Winship: How would you characterize what he has revealed?
Wizner: Well, maybe the best way to answer that question is to remember what President Obama said in the first week after the revelations began to appear on front pages. He said Americans shouldnt be too worried about these disclosures because all three branches of government had blessed the programs and activities that were being disclosed. That was a true statement. That was also exactly the problem. And its worth looking at what those same three branches of government have done since Edward Snowdens disclosures, since the public was brought into this conversation.
So lets look at the courts. Now, its true that a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved, in secret, some of these programs. Its a court that hears only from the government, does not have the benefit of adversarial briefing, didnt get to hear what our objections would have been. Its also a court that was set up to give warrants, not to write opinions on whether surveillance programs in general were lawful. And when we tried to bring challenges to these programs in open federal courts, we got as far as the Supreme Court, but every court turned us away without even considering the legality of the programs. The government said, These plaintiffs have no right to be in court. They cant show that they were subjected to these surveillance programs, and therefore they dont have standing. And theyre not allowed to use the discovery process to learn that, because that would be a state secret. The result being that no one has the right to go into federal court to challenge the legality of these programs.
Edward Snowden was watching this. In our very first conversation, one of his first questions to me was, Have these documents that have been published so far given you standing to go back in court? To him, the idea that a court would not answer the question, Is this program legal? Is it constitutional? but instead would contort itself in order to not answer that question seemed like a failure of oversight, and he was right.
Whats happened since his disclosures? We have now taken some of these documents, gone back into federal courts, where our standing is really much harder to question. Two federal judges have now considered, for example, the constitutionality of the governments collection of all telephone metadata. Theyve come so far to different conclusions on the legal question, but both said that the plaintiffs have standing to be in court. So one thing that hes done is hes reinvigorated judicial oversight.
- more -
http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/11/our-chat-with-edward-snowdens-legal-counsel/
Winship: How would you characterize what he has revealed?
Wizner: Well, maybe the best way to answer that question is to remember what President Obama said in the first week after the revelations began to appear on front pages. He said Americans shouldnt be too worried about these disclosures because all three branches of government had blessed the programs and activities that were being disclosed. That was a true statement. That was also exactly the problem. And its worth looking at what those same three branches of government have done since Edward Snowdens disclosures, since the public was brought into this conversation.
So lets look at the courts. Now, its true that a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved, in secret, some of these programs. Its a court that hears only from the government, does not have the benefit of adversarial briefing, didnt get to hear what our objections would have been. Its also a court that was set up to give warrants, not to write opinions on whether surveillance programs in general were lawful. And when we tried to bring challenges to these programs in open federal courts, we got as far as the Supreme Court, but every court turned us away without even considering the legality of the programs. The government said, These plaintiffs have no right to be in court. They cant show that they were subjected to these surveillance programs, and therefore they dont have standing. And theyre not allowed to use the discovery process to learn that, because that would be a state secret. The result being that no one has the right to go into federal court to challenge the legality of these programs.
Edward Snowden was watching this. In our very first conversation, one of his first questions to me was, Have these documents that have been published so far given you standing to go back in court? To him, the idea that a court would not answer the question, Is this program legal? Is it constitutional? but instead would contort itself in order to not answer that question seemed like a failure of oversight, and he was right.
Whats happened since his disclosures? We have now taken some of these documents, gone back into federal courts, where our standing is really much harder to question. Two federal judges have now considered, for example, the constitutionality of the governments collection of all telephone metadata. Theyve come so far to different conclusions on the legal question, but both said that the plaintiffs have standing to be in court. So one thing that hes done is hes reinvigorated judicial oversight.
- more -
http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/11/our-chat-with-edward-snowdens-legal-counsel/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
We can applaud media's greater NSA scrutiny AND think that Snowden's resume/timing/motives [View all]
blm
Mar 2014
OP
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 believe he's been apprised of everything CIA/NSA has been doing, even by private firms selected
blm
Mar 2014
#79
I admit I didn't read your whole post. After seeing all your LOLs and totally rude
cui bono
Mar 2014
#12
I told you, after seeing mostly LOLs and rude posts trying to ridicule people with no substance
cui bono
Mar 2014
#22
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
I agree. I wish there WAS a way for Dems to accrue the power base needed to confront this
blm
Mar 2014
#94
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
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
"the last few decades of BushInc" include 6 yrs of ObamaInc., 8 yrs of ClintonInc.
delrem
Mar 2014
#50
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
I feel that if you can't wrap your brain around what was said, only focused research can help you
blm
Mar 2014
#78
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