Snowden STILL a hero
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
Overview[edit]
All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's largest telecommunication companies' major interconnected locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic.[6] Critics said that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[7] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[8] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]
After an article about the program, (which had been code-named Stellar Wind), was published in The New York Times on December 16, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed its existence.[11][12][13] The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[14] Critics of The Times have alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately published by The Times was essentially the same as reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had submitted in 2004.[15] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.[16] The FBI began investigating leaks about the program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.[17]
Gonzales said the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States".[18] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's largest telecommunication companies' major interconnected locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic.[6] Critics said that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[7] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[8] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]
After an article about the program, (which had been code-named Stellar Wind), was published in The New York Times on December 16, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed its existence.[11][12][13] The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[14] Critics of The Times have alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately published by The Times was essentially the same as reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had submitted in 2004.[15] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.[16] The FBI began investigating leaks about the program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.[17]
Gonzales said the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States".[18] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
SmarterthanYou
rebel
jesus christ you stupid moron. have you really lost your fucking mind? can you not pay enough attention to remember that i've been criticizing and accusing BOTH Obama and Bush over this crap?
stop being a partisan retard.
It is simply not the same thing. Collecting meta data and listening in on conversations are two very different things. You keep intentionally ignoring that fact!
I remember coming here being somewhat proud that the company I worked for was not complying, then later upset that they were now that they had been exempted from lawsuits.
Again, If you believe the program did not expand, and that simply removing your ability to sue the companies for giving away information to the government it is at least "bad". However, the program has expanded, if only through efficiency over time. That they made it so you can't sue didn't change the legality of it at all. And if you pretend that they get upset over Snowden for leaking new information but say that it is all false...
Lying about a government program is not illegal, he would neither be a traitor nor have even broken the law if the information he passed to the press was not accurate.
Calling him a traitor and demanding prosecution is itself evidence that he has more credibility than you want to believe. But if you don't want to believe him, believe Mark Udall, D Senator from Colorado...
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23406958/sen-mark-udalls-warnings-federal-domestic-spying-have
christiefan915
Catalyst
I hate that Obama's doing this as much as I hated that bush did it. But to be perfectly honest, I thought this kind of spying was going on for decades and the only difference now is that someone made it public.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If he was a Chinese Spy... why would he out himself rather than maintain his position where he had access to intel?
What I keep pointing out is that the government lacks credibility in their denial, you can't have it both ways. It is not illegal to lie about a government program. What Snowden has done is not illegal, unless what he says is true.
I didn't ask you what you were proud of. I asked you to name a company that didn't comply.
They didn't just change the law so that you can't sue. First, they changed Section 215 of the Patriot Act to expand the scope of what was permissible to collect and then later they passed the Protect America Act, which both legalized on a prospective basis the illegal conduct of the Bush Administration and granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications providers that cooperated with government surveillance. Pretending that the just changed the law so that people couldn't sue is just ignorant.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Damo. I haven't accused anyone of lying, of being a traitor and sure as shit haven't demanded prosecution of anyone.
It is simply that I have already, back when I was "somewhat" proud.
Pretending that the important bit wasn't changing the law so the companies couldn't get sued is ignorant. It was what caused all of the companies to comply, along with changes making it illegal not to comply. Which still doesn't change the simple legality, asking for them to give information that the SCOTUS ruled they owned, when given between companies or sold, is not illegal so long as they comply willingly there was no law broken. What they did with the changes was attempt an end run on the 4th, which doesn't change the constitutionality, nor make it better, in fact it made it worse.
When did I say YOU did. I'm talking about the "in the know" government officials demanding his prosecution and calling him a traitor. That you "don't know" about this is absolutely deliberate ignorance. You know, Feinstein, Boehner, Cheney (yeah not current, but still saying the same thing).
When Feinstein and Cheney agree on something, we should pay attention.
Pretending that legalizing the formerly illegal conduct on a prospective basis was an unimportant bit is just fucking stupid. You're just pretending that it didn't happen. Congress made it legal.
You said YOU several times in the bit. And it wasn't readily apparent that you were talking about anyone else in your purported response to me.
Also, too, on the Qwest thing, that pertained only to the call records database. In 2005, Section 215 of the Patriot Act was modified to include the call records data and to specifically enable the government to get FISA court orders to get the information, which is what the government did for Verizon (and everyone else presumably).
That doesn't speak to the surveillance of online communications unde PRISM and its predecessors.
That doesn't speak to the surveillance of online communications unde PRISM and its predecessors.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
have.....from the above....
i.e. not illegal......as pointed out before, if you call a legally wiretapped phone, you are not protected......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and you keep ignoring the fact no one is listening in on coversations.....
quite true, but where does it stop? is congress adequately doing its job of oversight? or does it just rollover and play dead?
do the fisa courts do their job or do they just rubber stamp requests?
just how much freedom are we giving up to prevent terrorism?
and should we worry more about the government's collection of data about us or corporate america's data mining.
i have noticed that whenever i order something on line from the browser that i use to access jpp, that i get ads on jpp targeted at me.
if you want more privacy, move as far off of the grid as you can and use a cash economy (note: degauss your cash if you do not want to be tracked by your cash...and do not use atms)
use solar power with a converter from dc to ac and do not hook up to the electric grid, use batteries for overnight power.
if you must use telephones, us land lines instead of cell phones or just use burner phones.
what me paranoid?...nah
oh i forgot, install a Faraday cage around your home, use double pane windows and thick drapes.
there is more you can do to stay off of the corporate/government radar, be creative and look things up on the web, before you disconnect from the web (just use the computers at your local library if you must).
use aliases, change your passwords often, do not use your real name or age when required to give it out (and vary the names and ages that you use).
wear disguises that change the shape of your face, contact lens that change the color of your eyes...even the shape of your ears and of course hair color
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Are you having a laugh? Have you never heard of Project Echelon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
Do you have a creditable source of information saying that the Obama Administration was listening into conversations without a warrant.
I don't see where Snowden has said that the government is listening in...
I'm not ignoring that fact, actually its is my point. From what I can tell, the Obama Administration is not listening in on conversations, we all know the Bush Administration was.