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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
17. Breitbart?
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:37 PM
Mar 2014
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

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
Effects

  • 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]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions


Here is a fact that even Snowden's legal reps understand:

Our Chat With Edward Snowden’s 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 shouldn’t 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 it’s worth looking at what those same three branches of government have done since Edward Snowden’s disclosures, since the public was brought into this conversation.

So let’s look at the courts. Now, it’s true that a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved, in secret, some of these programs. It’s a court that hears only from the government, does not have the benefit of adversarial briefing, didn’t get to hear what our objections would have been. It’s 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 can’t show that they were subjected to these surveillance programs, and therefore they don’t have standing. And they’re 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.

What’s 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 government’s collection of all telephone metadata. They’ve 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 he’s done is he’s reinvigorated judicial oversight.

- more -

http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/11/our-chat-with-edward-snowdens-legal-counsel/




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 #17