NSA Wiretapping and Snowden on the run

[Hiphoplives4eva]

What are you, a beat cop? With that nonsensical, "if you didn't commit a crime, then why did you..." logic. There are a number of reasons why a large national security apparatus chooses to classify information regarding the very nature of how and why it conducts clandestine operations vital to the security of a nation and it's citizens. I do not believe this is a game you really want to play.

Kill the ad hominem and raise an actual argument or let others discuss this without the nonsense.

Stop Trolling.



Yes. I would argue that the program is legal and constitutional. It follows investigative strategies employed long before the NSA had the technological ability to monitor, collect, and analyze massive amounts of communication.

Scale is the only difference, but arguing against the scale of the program is meaningless because one would have to establish a threshold and argue why law enforcement can monitor the threshold as opposed to the whole (and I mean, when employing investigative tactics such as DNRs).

Your such a simp.

Do you even know what the constitution is? Liberals are so fukking delusional.

 

[Kid McNamara]

FISA obviously, NSA is derivative of that. Without having the time to make the argument, I'll just link you to this: NSA surveillance may be legal ? but it?s unconstitutional - Washington Post

I agree that the number means nothing without context, but it's prima facie case for further civilian oversight.

I've read this piece and placed it in the bushes alongside a number of other op-eds on the subject. I know you will be tempted to say, "McNamara, she's a Georgetown professor with *state credentials here*," but her credentials do not allow her to make poorly reasoned arguments against policies she disagrees with. To put it simply, her saying that the fourth amendment was violated does not stand as evidence that a violation occurred.

Her article is purposely sloppy and misleading. She fails to make a distinction between the portion of PRISM meant to collect foreign intelligence and the portion meant to collect domestic metadata. Furthermore, when mentioning the collection of telephonic metadata, she glosses over the Supreme Court's decision regarding the reasonable expectation of privacy; thereby affording the argument no context and thus, no power. And finally, she refuses to properly and clearly convey the distinction between the interception and monitoring of content versus the collecting and analyzing metadata.

The average person reading this and other WAPO articles would believe that national security officials are going out and monitoring phone/internet content without meeting any sort of legal precedent sans a blanket FISA court order. This however, does not appear to be the case. But bet, there has been a lot of sloppy reporting and commentary over the past two weeks and most of it is rooted in begging the question in order to sensationalize the story.

As previously stated, this program is simply law enforcement 401 on a global scale.

 

[No1]

I've read this piece and placed it in the bushes alongside a number of other op-eds on the subject. I know you will be tempted to say, "McNamara, she's a Georgetown professor with *state credentials here*," but her credentials do not allow her to make poorly reasoned arguments against policies she disagrees with. To put it simply, her saying that the fourth amendment was violated does not stand as evidence that a violation occurred.

Her article is purposely sloppy and misleading. She fails to make a distinction between the portion of PRISM meant to collect foreign intelligence and the portion meant to collect domestic metadata. Furthermore, when mentioning the collection of telephonic metadata, she glosses over the Supreme Court's decision regarding the reasonable expectation of privacy; thereby affording the argument no context and thus, no power. And finally, she refuses to properly and clearly convey the distinction between the interception and monitoring of content versus the collecting and analyzing metadata.

The average person reading this and other WAPO articles would believe that national security officials are going out and listening in on phone/internet content without meeting any sort of legal precedent, sans a blanket FISA court order.

Not true. As previously stated, this program is simply law enforcement 401, on a global scale.

You're wrong. That's not her point. Her point is simple, the law has deviated from its antecedents. It no longer has the safeguards in place that it had before. Now, she cannot affirmatively prove a lot of things without full facts. She can only point out that the process itself is flawed, and that what it allows goes beyond what we have allowed under the 4th amendment. The fact that the NSA doesn't even need to seek judicial consent for so many of its actions is a problem in and of itself. That is completely beyond a judge allowing wiretaps because there is reasonable suspicion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these knee-jerk unabashed liberals (who I've come to despite almost as much as conservatives as I've evolved from being one), but her point is compelling. FISA now allows exactly what is was supposed to prevent, from a historical perspective. But I have to be in the court room at 9:30, maybe I'll explain better tomorrow.

 

[the next guy]

You ever think the chinese don't hide that they are monitoring their citizens because chinese citizens have no fukking choice? Did that ever cross your mind? There are no checks and balances on the chinese government. They can do whatever the fukk they want and all the chinese citizen can do is either cry quietly or protest and get locked up indefinetly or killed.

Are you seriously questioning the openness of the communist chinese party vs the US government?

Jesus christ you people are delusional..

Why are you such an obamastan? You can use all the similies you want, but at the end of the day there was only a ten year provision, he signed the extention when he could have vetoed it. That's the cold hard truth.

 

[malbaker86]

*posts up*

This CAN'T end well for him

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Each time I see his face one of these songs pop in my head...





Go Snow Go!

 

[newarkhiphop]

Edward Snowden has not entered Russia - Sergei Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: "He did not cross the Russian border"

Russia says it has had no involvement in the travel plans of fugitive US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.

His whereabouts are unclear after he flew from Hong Kong to Moscow on Sunday. His passport has been revoked.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted Mr Snowden had not crossed the border and rejected what he termed US attempts to blame Russia for his disappearance

BBC News - Edward Snowden has not entered Russia - Sergei Lavrov

 

[theworldismine13]

BBC News - Edward Snowden has not entered Russia - Sergei Lavrov

Wow, that is pretty embarrassing if the us government is doing diplomacy using news reports and has no actual confirmation from its own intelligence services

 

[AV Dicey]

Wow, that is pretty embarrassing if the us government is doing diplomacy using news reports and has no actual confirmation from its own intelligence services

He's in mother russia, that's just a bunch of legalese to do with the fact that he hasn't been processed by immigration or customs or whatever, they'll debrief him, see what he has in those computers and throw him in the bushes, they better get him because the longer this goes on, the narrative of restoring US reputation around the world is out, and that was a very large part of what put Obama in power

 

[Kid McNamara]

You're wrong. That's not her point. Her point is simple, the law has deviated from its antecedents. It no longer has the safeguards in place that it had before. Now, she cannot affirmatively prove a lot of things without full facts. She can only point out that the process itself is flawed, and that what it allows goes beyond what we have allowed under the 4th amendment. The fact that the NSA doesn't even need to seek judicial consent for so many of its actions is a problem in and of itself. That is completely beyond a judge allowing wiretaps because there is reasonable suspicion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these knee-jerk unabashed liberals (who I've come to despite almost as much as conservatives as I've evolved from being one), but her point is compelling. FISA now allows exactly what is was supposed to prevent, from a historical perspective. But I have to be in the court room at 9:30, maybe I'll explain better tomorrow.

I understand the point she is attempting to make, but using the recent NSA leak as an example is where her argument falls off. My point is, the legality and constitutionality of the NSA programs were established long before the Patriot Act was established and numerous revisions to FISA were made. Now, the examples of executive overreach cited as reasons for establishing FISA (reading telegraphs, opening mail, intercepting radio communications, and surreptitious entry) would certainly qualify her argument, but these are not examples that apply to the NSA leak.

But again, with regards to greater levels FISC oversight we agree. I stop short of believing the public should be privy to cases brought before the court, but some additional civilian oversight should be discussed. If she simply wishes to make that point, leave the NSA program out of it.

And what are these actions the NSA can take without seeking judicial consent?

 

[Idaeo]

Vladimir Putin: Edward Snowden Still In Moscow Airport Transit Zone, Won't Be Extradited


Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Putin said that Snowden hasn't crossed the Russian border and is free to go anywhere.

Speaking on a visit to Finland Tuesday, he added that Russian security agencies "didn't work and aren't working" with Snowden. He gave no more details.

Commenting on a U.S. request to extradite him, Putin said that Russia doesn't have an extradition agreement with the U.S. and thus wouldn't meet the U.S. request.

He voiced hope that Snowden will depart as quickly as possible and that his stopover at Moscow's airport wouldn't affect bilateral ties.



Vladi hit em with the

 

[VladTheImpaler]

Vlad was like





"who whan test me"

 

[badvillain]

Next May when my programming/development contract expires with my current employer, I will be requesting my recruiter only shop me to companies in Switzerland, Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands.

I'm fukkin done with this shyt man, wait until they get those biometric national id cards too.

 

[Kid McNamara]

Next May when my programming/development contract expires with my current employer, I will be requesting my recruiter only shop me to companies in Switzerland, Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands.

I'm fukkin done with this shyt man, wait until they get those biometric national id cards too.

What you so upset about though?

 

[Guitar Bains]

Greenwald: Snowden’s Files Are Out There if ‘Anything Happens’ to Him

Greenwald: Snowden

“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”

When asked if Greenwald believed his computer was being monitored by the U.S. government. “I would be shocked if the U.S. government were not trying to access the information on my computer. I carry my computers and data with me everywhere I go.”