Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:04:51 AM EDT

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
...
What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.
View Quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Some of the members here just need to walk away from their accounts.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:08:13 AM EDT
not another one of these, yep, we are spying on Americans threads.

is the .gov joshing us or what?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:08:59 AM EDT
Did I make it in before the bootlickers?





Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:11:33 AM EDT
It's all Bush's fault
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:14:05 AM EDT
They  are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them...
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:20:46 AM EDT
In.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:24:18 AM EDT
And there is NO WAY it's being used for political gain. None at all.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:24:48 AM EDT
The administration’s assurances rely on legalistic definitions of the term “target” that can be at odds with ordinary English usage. The enlarged authority is part of a fundamental shift in the government’s approach to surveillance: collecting first, and protecting Americans’ privacy later.
View Quote



So....how many definitions does 'is' have, any ways?


Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:26:58 AM EDT
Where do they house all of this shit anyway?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:36:25 AM EDT
The court’s expansion of authority went largely unnoticed when the opinion was released, but it formed the basis for cryptic warnings last year by a pair of Democratic senators, Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Mark Udall (Colo.), that the administration had a “back-door search loophole” that enabled the NSA to scour intercepted communications for those of Americans. They introduced legislation to require a warrant, but they were barred by classification rules from disclosing the court’s authorization or whether the NSA was already conducting such searches.

“The [surveillance] Court documents declassified recently show that in late 2011 the court authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless searches of individual Americans’ communications using an authority intended to target only foreigners,” Wyden said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Our intelligence agencies need the authority to target the communications of foreigners, but for government agencies to deliberately read the e-mails or listen to the phone calls of individual Americans, the Constitution requires a warrant.”
View Quote

So an executive agency made a secret request to a secret court to allow it to disregard the 4th amendment, this request was granted and the elected representatives who did know about it were prohibited by law from mentioning it to the public or their fellow legislators.

Where was that thread where some posters here were implying that if you didn't agree with the NSA's actions then you were some aspiring fascist who wanted to overturn our democratic government? The thread is probably archived now but there were a few doing just that.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:42:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2013 9:56:59 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:47:33 AM EDT
NSA stopped the Boston Bombers even after the Russians told the US they were Terrorist,FTW.........

Fuck the NSA
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:58:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Saladman:
They  are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them...
View Quote


The NSA combined with the rest of the Homeland "Security" apparatus is in an excellent position to blackmail or embarrass the people whose hands we put on the leash.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:01:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:03:07 AM EDT
Secret permission from a secret kangaroo court.  Wonderful.  

Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:10:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.
View Quote

How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:12:05 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dex357:
not another one of these, yep, we are spying on Americans threads.

is the .gov joshing us or what?
View Quote


So you like having you phone calls listened to?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:20:31 AM EDT
Is anyone really surprised by this?





Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:21:58 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Et2ss:
It's all Bush's fault
View Quote


Clintons


FIFY



Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:36:30 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:


The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  



Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.



Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.



Read it yourself.
View Quote


So they are reading our email then. So much for only non-US persons, huh?





 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:38:08 AM EDT
There is a storm approaching.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:39:06 AM EDT
Secret courts, yay.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:40:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2013 10:41:16 AM EDT by RECONSIX]

ETA: They're all a bunch of lying whores, nothing new really.


Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:48:06 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

ETA: They're all a bunch of lying whores, nothing new really.

http://youtu.be/KVY3mq6B-5w
View Quote


Oh ok, thanks Mr. Obamatard except you're a lying fuck fuck.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:52:41 AM EDT
Secret courts are an affront to liberty.



They should not exist.  Period.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:54:44 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 72826:





So they are reading our email then. So much for only non-US persons, huh?



 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 72826:



Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  



Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.



Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.



Read it yourself.


So they are reading our email then. So much for only non-US persons, huh?



 
Yep.  Reading, storing and data mining every single one.

 



But it's not a "search".  




Is this part of those new common core standards?  Did they implement them at the NSA first?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2013 10:56:42 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:

How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.

How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?


You didn't read the document, did you?

Read the document.

No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?


Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:57:07 AM EDT
Snowden did nothing wrong.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:59:16 AM EDT
In like Cin
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:00:11 AM EDT
Meh. It's pretty clear and evident that we want this to happen, or we wouldn't allow it to continue.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:00:31 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sturmgeist:
Snowden did nothing wrong.
View Quote


Neither did the Rosenbergs or Robert Hanssen.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:02:06 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Et2ss:
It's all Bush's fault
View Quote


well he actually did push and sign the Patriot act....
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:05:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.
View Quote


You have consistently held that the NSA and the administration is justified in everything they've done.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:12:12 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:


You didn't read the document, did you?

Read the document.

No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.

How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?


You didn't read the document, did you?

Read the document.

No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?



You mean like the top of page 51 where it says:
"is reasonably believed to contain foreign intelegence information or evidence of a crime"

So they can vacuum up everything and you can be prosecuted based off what they find.

And:
"A report including the identity of the United States person may be provided to a 'recipient requiring the identity or such a person for the performance of official duties'."

It also says that an analyst must review the contents of the intercepted communication to see if the NSA was allowed to collect it. So, if they weren't allowed to collect it and it doesn't contain evidence of a crime then they only hold onto it for five years. If there is evidence of a crime they are allowed to pass the information on to somebody that needs the information for the performance of their official duties.

What part of all of this do you expect to make me feel better?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:13:14 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
You didn't read the document, did you?



Read the document.



No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?





View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:



Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:


Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  



Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.



Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.



Read it yourself.


How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?




You didn't read the document, did you?



Read the document.



No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?









 
Reading it.




Lots of redacted stuff.




Lots of government lying to the court.




Lots of the court saying "bullshit".






Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:15:14 AM EDT
Senior administration officials disagree. “If we’re validly targeting foreigners and we happen to collect communications of Americans, we don’t have to close our eyes to that,” Litt said. “I’m not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we’ve already collected.”
View Quote



So I guess this means that if I went to the same grocery store as Muhammad just 1 time. The NSA has the "right" to collect all of my financial data given to them by a secret surveillance court.

Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:17:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:23:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.
View Quote


Because once you've contacted the subject of an investigation you're a part of it. This is how major hasan was linked to that radical cleric.

It's no different then walking into a crack house that's under police surveillance. Maybe you were just visitng a friend. Maybe you buy crack. That's why they call it an "investigation"
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:24:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
...
What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.
View Quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Some of the members here just need to walk away from their accounts.
View Quote


Dude. Sometimes I think you just read titles and summary paragraphs and fill the rest in yourself.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:25:16 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nagewaza624:



So I guess this means that if I went to the same grocery store as Muhammad just 1 time. The NSA has the "right" to collect all of my financial data given to them by a secret surveillance court.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nagewaza624:
Senior administration officials disagree. “If we’re validly targeting foreigners and we happen to collect communications of Americans, we don’t have to close our eyes to that,” Litt said. “I’m not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we’ve already collected.”



So I guess this means that if I went to the same grocery store as Muhammad just 1 time. The NSA has the "right" to collect all of my financial data given to them by a secret surveillance court.



No, when you send Mohammed a PM on jihadisanon.net, they will look to see what if any connection you could have. Then they move on.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:26:21 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
The same government that reads my email, listens to my phone calls, follows my travels using the phone's signals, and is reading this post ... will arrest me if from 100 feet away I video tape a police officer making a traffic stop on the public streets.

Sounds about right.

Where's the reset button?
View Quote


They're doing all that? Damn, I thought about opening a hawala once, does it pay alright?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:35:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:



You didn't read the document, did you?

Read the document.

No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.

How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?



You didn't read the document, did you?

Read the document.

No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?






Hell no. BarryHoosain might have a tracking virus in it.

Seriously,though, I see what you're trying to do. Someone has to present Barrys side of it. It all sounds reasonable until you simply think about how they know what's in your e-mail that justifies spying. See, the spying comes first. The justification follows. And if that little court says it's ok with the 4th Amendment, just trust them.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:37:00 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
You didn't read the document, did you?



Read the document.



No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?





View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:



Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:


Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  



Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.



Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.



Read it yourself.


How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place?




You didn't read the document, did you?



Read the document.



No one here is giving an opinion on the document without actually reading it, right?





Finished a VERY fast speed read/scan.  

 



1.  I don't believe the executive/NSA/CIA, in terms of scope of collection (which I consider a search as it assuridly uses data mining in this stage), extent of retention, or extent of dissemination.  The courts, even this secret, government friendly one, seems to be doubtful as well.




2.  More specifically, this does not jibe with the previous admissions considering interceptions at internet companies (gmail/etc).  There seems to be a pattern here to use weasel words to try and find some moment that any given TCP/IP transaction is somehow not covered by the forth and it can be grabbed.  Again, that grab and the associated actions that immediately follow it is a search using the meaning applied to the word search that has been in use for the history of the English language.




3.  The courts limits aren't really that unreasonable (although I do disagree with some details, but that's another conversation).  This is however muted by the large amounts of the document that were redacted, and the limited scope of the program that this decision appears to apply too.




4.  I repeat the objection I made another thread:  These programs, in totality, provide nearly absolute power to crush dissent, and to rely on the word of some government bureaucrat does not provide sufficient protection against it's abuse.  Power corrupts, and the amount of power vested in these programs is exceptional.  The practical limitations against abuse has been removed.  The only way to insert it back into the system is to legally forbid (with teeth) the mass collection of internet communications.  This system could be easily used by the party in power to monitor communications within other parties and use that to obtain a political advantage...  AND THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL IF THIS HAPPENS.  







Whatever slight gains all of these programs provide for our security are simply not worth the extreme risk to liberty and our system of government.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:37:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
Meh. It's pretty clear and evident that we want this to happen, or we wouldn't allow it to continue.
View Quote

Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:42:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:


Dude. Sometimes I think you just read titles and summary paragraphs and fill the rest in yourself.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
...
What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Some of the members here just need to walk away from their accounts.


Dude. Sometimes I think you just read titles and summary paragraphs and fill the rest in yourself.

You apparently missed the quotes that I pulled out from the middle of the document. But hey, never miss an opportunity to attack a messenger.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:45:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By StretchMaK:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By StretchMaK:
Originally Posted By jerrwhy01:
Meh. It's pretty clear and evident that we want this to happen, or we wouldn't allow it to continue.



It's quite a leap to claim that because millions of people aren't violently attacking the government, we are asking for it's abuses.

There's been more than a bit of protest against this. I know you aren't going to claim you were talking about the vote; because there's no election time between when these leaks came out and now.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:53:34 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.
View Quote


I will read it later tonight or tomorrow.  

Question to the part in red above:  Per the document, can the American's be targeted without a warrant?  
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:15:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2013 12:18:30 PM EDT by RogueSpear2023]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Et2ss:
It's all Bush's fault
View Quote


It an odd way it is, I said back when the Patriot Act was passed the .gov was going to use this for evil purposes at some point, didn't take long to prove me right. You never want the .gov deciding who is a terrorist, because sooner or later political opposition become terrorists.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:38:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.
View Quote


TL:DR
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:46:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RogueSpear2023:


It an odd way it is, I said back when the Patriot Act was passed the .gov was going to use this for evil purposes at some point, didn't take long to prove me right. You never want the .gov deciding who is a terrorist, because sooner or later political opposition become terrorists.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RogueSpear2023:
Originally Posted By Et2ss:
It's all Bush's fault


It an odd way it is, I said back when the Patriot Act was passed the .gov was going to use this for evil purposes at some point, didn't take long to prove me right. You never want the .gov deciding who is a terrorist, because sooner or later political opposition become terrorists.


Tell me, who decides who or what a criminal is in your local community? You and a group of guys or your local government? I'll wait for that ever so intelligence response.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:47:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BSWilson:


You have consistently held that the NSA and the administration is justified in everything they've done.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.


You have consistently held that the NSA and the administration is justified in everything they've done.


No, I have not.  That is 100% false.

I am just reading the document linked in the OP and describing the content.  

Have you even bothered to read it?  


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top