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]cui bono
(19,926 posts)19. I've acknkowledged and corrected that error.
GOP and Feinstein join to fulfill Obama's demand for renewed warrantless eavesdropping
The California Democrat's disgusting rhetoric recalls the worst of Dick Cheney while advancing Obama's agenda
To this day, many people identify mid-2008 as the time they realized what type of politician Barack Obama actually is. Six months before, when seeking the Democratic nomination, then-Sen. Obama unambiguously vowed that he would filibuster "any bill" that retroactively immunized the telecom industry for having participated in the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program.
But in July 2008, once he had secured the nomination, a bill came before the Senate that did exactly that - the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - and Obama not only failed to filibuster as promised, but far worse, he voted against the filibuster brought by other Senators, and then voted in favor of enacting the bill itself. That blatant, unblinking violation of his own clear promise - actively supporting a bill he had sworn months earlier he would block from a vote - caused a serious rift even in the middle of an election year between Obama and his own supporters.
Critically, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 did much more than shield lawbreaking telecoms from all forms of legal accountability. Jointly written by Dick Cheney and then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, it also legalized vast new, sweeping and almost certainly unconstitutional forms of warrantless government eavesdropping.
In doing so, the new 2008 law gutted the 30-year-old FISA statute that had been enacted to prevent the decades of severe spying abuses discovered by the mid-1970s Church Committee: by simply barring the government from eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without first obtaining a warrant from a court. Worst of all, the 2008 law legalized most of what Democrats had spent years pretending was such a scandal: the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program secretly implemented by George Bush after the 9/11 attack. In other words, the warrantless eavesdropping "scandal" that led to a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times reporters who revealed it ended not with investigations or prosecutions for those who illegally spied on Americans, but with the Congressional GOP joining with key Democrats (including Obama) to legalize most of what Bush and Cheney had done. Ever since, the Obama DOJ has invoked secrecy and standing doctrines to prevent any courts from ruling on whether the warrantless eavesdropping powers granted by the 2008 law violate the Constitution.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/fisa-feinstein-obama-democrats-eavesdropping
The California Democrat's disgusting rhetoric recalls the worst of Dick Cheney while advancing Obama's agenda
To this day, many people identify mid-2008 as the time they realized what type of politician Barack Obama actually is. Six months before, when seeking the Democratic nomination, then-Sen. Obama unambiguously vowed that he would filibuster "any bill" that retroactively immunized the telecom industry for having participated in the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program.
But in July 2008, once he had secured the nomination, a bill came before the Senate that did exactly that - the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - and Obama not only failed to filibuster as promised, but far worse, he voted against the filibuster brought by other Senators, and then voted in favor of enacting the bill itself. That blatant, unblinking violation of his own clear promise - actively supporting a bill he had sworn months earlier he would block from a vote - caused a serious rift even in the middle of an election year between Obama and his own supporters.
Critically, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 did much more than shield lawbreaking telecoms from all forms of legal accountability. Jointly written by Dick Cheney and then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, it also legalized vast new, sweeping and almost certainly unconstitutional forms of warrantless government eavesdropping.
In doing so, the new 2008 law gutted the 30-year-old FISA statute that had been enacted to prevent the decades of severe spying abuses discovered by the mid-1970s Church Committee: by simply barring the government from eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without first obtaining a warrant from a court. Worst of all, the 2008 law legalized most of what Democrats had spent years pretending was such a scandal: the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program secretly implemented by George Bush after the 9/11 attack. In other words, the warrantless eavesdropping "scandal" that led to a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times reporters who revealed it ended not with investigations or prosecutions for those who illegally spied on Americans, but with the Congressional GOP joining with key Democrats (including Obama) to legalize most of what Bush and Cheney had done. Ever since, the Obama DOJ has invoked secrecy and standing doctrines to prevent any courts from ruling on whether the warrantless eavesdropping powers granted by the 2008 law violate the Constitution.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/fisa-feinstein-obama-democrats-eavesdropping
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
By Timothy B. Lee
August 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm
If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from "My House." They opened the phone to determine the number for "My House." That led them to the man's home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man's argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man's phone.
The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit's ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.
On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn't have the wealth of information we store on more modern cellphones. It's arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said the police can search. So, as Orin Kerr points out, if the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on "facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/
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