User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:08:13 AM EDT
[#1]
not another one of these, yep, we are spying on Americans threads.
is the .gov joshing us or what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:08:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Did I make it in before the bootlickers?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:11:33 AM EDT
[#3]
It's all Bush's fault
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:14:05 AM EDT
[#4]
They are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:20:46 AM EDT
[#5]
In.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:24:18 AM EDT
[#6]
And there is NO WAY it's being used for political gain. None at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:24:48 AM EDT
[#7]
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. So....how many definitions does 'is' have, any ways? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:26:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Where do they house all of this shit anyway?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:36:25 AM EDT
[#9]
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.” 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:42:55 AM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:47:33 AM EDT
[#11]
NSA stopped the Boston Bombers even after the Russians told the US they were Terrorist,FTW.........
Fuck the NSA |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:58:00 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are allowed to do as they please, only as long as we let them... 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:01:53 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:03:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Secret permission from a secret kangaroo court. Wonderful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:10:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:12:05 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not another one of these, yep, we are spying on Americans threads. is the .gov joshing us or what? So you like having you phone calls listened to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:20:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Is anyone really surprised by this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:21:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's all Bush's fault Clintons FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:36:30 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:38:08 AM EDT
[#20]
There is a storm approaching.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:39:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Secret courts, yay.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:40:09 AM EDT
[#22]
ETA: They're all a bunch of lying whores, nothing new really. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:48:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOh ok, thanks Mr. Obamatard except you're a lying fuck fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:52:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Secret courts are an affront to liberty.
They should not exist. Period.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:54:44 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they are reading our email then. So much for only non-US persons, huh? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? But it's not a "search".  Is this part of those new common core standards? Did they implement them at the NSA first?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:55:10 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would they know the content without targeting them in the first place? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:57:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Snowden did nothing wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 10:59:16 AM EDT
[#28]
In like Cin
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:00:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Meh. It's pretty clear and evident that we want this to happen, or we wouldn't allow it to continue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:00:31 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snowden did nothing wrong. Neither did the Rosenbergs or Robert Hanssen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:02:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's all Bush's fault well he actually did push and sign the Patriot act.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:05:35 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:12:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:13:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:15:14 AM EDT
[#35]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:17:51 AM EDT
[#36]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:23:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:24:01 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:25:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:26:21 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? They're doing all that? Damn, I thought about opening a hawala once, does it pay alright? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:35:13 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:37:00 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:37:00 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh. It's pretty clear and evident that we want this to happen, or we wouldn't allow it to continue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:42:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude. Sometimes I think you just read titles and summary paragraphs and fill the rest in yourself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:45:23 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 11:53:34 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:15:20 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:38:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. TL:DR |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:46:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2013 12:47:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have consistently held that the NSA and the administration is justified in everything they've done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
