For those of you claiming this is better because there is a warrant.

[Aerows]

I hope you get a new talking point, because the warrant is to be de-classified in 2038. Uh huh, top secret warrant that the public should have no access to (well, wouldn't if not for the leak) until well after everyone involved is beyond the statute of limitations or dead, because this was illegal.

25 years later. That makes it so much better.

Please fill me in on how finding out this 25 years later would make it any better than never finding out about it.

Find a new talking point, because "but they got a warrant for everybody" isn't going to fly. And I won't even go into the fact of the breadth of that warrant, just that the American public wouldn't have known for 25 years.

[geek tragedy]

1. The point of a warrant is that it means judicial involvment

and supervision, and a check on the executive branch

This is why people freaked out over Bush violating FISA.

[Aerows]

3. And it doesn't disturb you

that the judicial involvement is irrelevant because the public wouldn't find out about it until 25 years later when that judge was dead or past the statute of limitations?

Because that bothers the hell out of me.

[geek tragedy]

4. Judicial involvement is never irrelevant. nt

[Aerows]

7. It is when you can't bring anyone

to justice and stop an injustice. Which is what the entire justice department is there to do.

[randome]

16. Someone would need to demonstrate harm and then you can ALWAYS take officials to task.

But so far as we know, no one is being harmed by collecting phone meta data.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[premium]

21. That's not the point,

the point is that there is a secret court that issues secret warrants that, we, the people, have no say about.

And how the hell do you know that no one has been harmed by the collecting of phone meta data? It is, after all, secret, not subject to the American peoples scrutiny.

This is not the America I grew up in and believed in, and fought for.

[randome]

25. Do you know how many legal warrants are issued that 'we, the people' never see?

I would think at least hundreds daily. If a sufficient review process is set up, we're okay with it. It's only when Obama's NSA is involved that we think we should micro-manage everyone.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[premium]

28. You're kidding right?

I was in LE for 30+ years, I know how the system works. When a warrant is issued, most times the defendant or their lawyer is given a copy of it to present in court, but in the case with FISA, there is no notification of a warrant being issued to the defendant, no notification to their lawyer, because they don't know that they need a lawyer, after all, it's all secret. I'm astounded how you seem to think this is all hunky dorey just because some secret court, that American's know nothing about, ok's it.

[Aerows]

29. Exactly

It's done in secret with a secret warrant that no one can find, but it's okay because they will find out 25 years down the line when no one can be held accountable.

That's absolutely fine, right?

[premium]

33. Absolutely.

I am sad that people here are actually justifying this because some "secret FISA court" has authorized these warrants, even though the American people have no idea how these warrants are authorized because the whole process is "secret for national security".

[BlueStreak]

74. There are many different types at DU. Don't let one cohort get you down

There are people here who seem to be interested in a single issue, whether that be women's equity, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, President Hillary, the criticism of solar as an energy choice, or whatever.

There are others who can be counted on to take the position, "My Party right or wrong", or "My Obama, right or wrong"

There are others who generally support Democrats, but are willing to criticize them when they are wrong.

I assume you are of that last category, as am I. But that is not how everyone feels. It is up to folks to persuade others why they should rethink their positions.

[premium]

80. You're right,

I do fall in the last catagory, I'm willing to criticize them when they're wrong.
Thanks for the advice.

[cstanleytech]

126. About 99% agrement.

The only issue I take is with the " It is up to folks to persuade others why they should rethink their positions."
I would say its more like "You may try to persuade others why they should rethink their positions but try to keep in mind that your position may not might the best one either."
Otherwise like I said 99% agreement.

[cstanleytech]

117. "I am sad that people here are actually justifying this" Why are you surprised?

You are talking about people and people always have had different opinions and viewpoints, the only time we dont is when we are dead.

[premium]

120. Maybe I just expected something different

from a progressive board. Foolish me, I seem to be naive.

[cstanleytech]

128. Even on a more progressive board you will find differences of opinion. nt

[Mojorabbit]

151. I expected different also. We are in the same boat it seems. nt

[uponit7771]

42. Why has this process gone on for more than a day then? It sounds like it violates a part of the...

...constitution.

Thx in advance for any input

[premium]

46. I guess that too many Americans knew nothing about the secret FISA court

until just recently, and the fact that too many of our Congresscritters are willing to trade security for freedom.
Let's face the facts, Congress is now controlled by the corporations and have no obligation to the American people anymore.
I truly hope that this wakes the American people up and that there is a popular uprising against this, IMO, un-american program, but, judging by some of the comments here on DU, I'm not too hopeful of our future.

[treestar]

82. But are the results going to be used in a criminal prosecution?

This is national security stuff, it's about spooks and the like. They're trying to find plotters. It's not about law enforcement or the criminal law.

[premium]

92. It's about controlling the American population,

the phrase "National Security" has been used far too often to be believable anymore.
How do you justify a "secret FISA court", which we, the people, have no recourse to challenge, issuing warrants that we, the people, have no recourse to challenge, if we even knew about said warrant being issued?

[treestar]

135. How is the population controlled in any way?

If there are no criminal prosecutions, there's nothing happening to be aggrieved about. To even challenge this in court, you need standing, that is something that actually affects you - loss of freedom or property.

So my question remains. If it is used only for intelligence/national security purposes, then it is a different question, and there is still a balance to be considered between national security and privacy. It's not a simple either/or question.

See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/int006.html

on the role of intelligence, what it is useful for

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34279.pdf

the tension between national security and civil liberties.

Senator Edward Kennedy, quotes in above:

The complexity of the problem must not be underestimated. Electronic
surveillance can be a useful tool for the Government’s gathering of certain kinds
of information; yet, if abused, it can also constitute a particularly indiscriminate
and penetrating invasion of the privacy of our citizens. My objective over the
past six years has been to reach some kind of fair balance that will protect the
security of the United States without infringing on our citizens’ human liberties
and rights.8

[jberryhill]

136. Approximately nobody understands the point of your subject line

But - right - you aren't going to find someone sitting in jail because this data was used as evidence in a trial against them.

[Aerows]

32. I'll issue a warrant for your arrest

on frivolous grounds, search and seize your property and put you in jail for 25 years. But hey, there was a warrant, and you finally found out about it, so no need to micro-manage anything, right? The judge is gone, and everything, but hey, justice is served. You only missed 25 years.

[sabrina 1]

60. Were you around during the Bush years by any chance??

It's only when Obama's NSA is involved that we think we should micro-manage everyone.

That's an incredible statement coming from a Democrat. It was because of the outrage over BUSH using the telecoms to spy on the American people, that we worked so hard to elect someone who stated they were OPPOSED to his policies also and would work to 'change' them.

You are seriously stating that this is about Obama? I think you all need to drop that lie, it isn't working and only serving to turn people, and I know I have been talking to Democrats in RL, against this president completely.

Is that what you are trying to do, turn people against Obama? You have no memory over the attacks on Bush over this very same issue? How could that be?

[randome]

65. And because outrage was directed at Bush, we instituted reforms.

Those reforms include having a legal warrant and periodic Congressional review.

We somehow conveniently 'forgot' all that during the past few years and now all of a sudden there is another source of outrage.

Phone record metadata does not rise to the level of 'outrage' to me.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

70. Then you are incredibly naive

about what can be gleaned from phone record metadata and what a person or persons that want to exploit it could do, and probably already has done, with it.

[Luminous Animal]

75. And those "reforms" were soundly condemned from many quarters.

[Aerows]

87. And we are soundly

condemning the hell out of them again, because they occurred under Obama, and would soundly condemn them if they occurred under Abraham Lincoln, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

[sabrina 1]

145. Um, no, wrong again. We already HAD a policy whereby a warrant was needed from the

FISA court. Bush violated that law when he used the Telecoms to spy on Americans.

Nothing needed fixing, that law was put in place after the Nixon abuses.

What we 'fixed' was to find a way to protect the Telecoms and Bush et al from charges of violating that law.

As lawsuits began, Congress, who can always be counted on to protect their wealthy Corporate buddies, passed a bill that was retroactive, going back to BEFORE Bush's illegal activities, making the 'legal' and thereby wiping out the opportunity for the victims of the illegal spying to receive any of the compensation provided for in the original law.

Now, they don't have to get a warrant in order to spy on the people, not until 'later', maybe a year later, AFTER THE FACT. It's known as the infamous 'Fisa Law'.

This president opposed Bush's illegal activities when they were revealed, then changed his mind and voted for the NEW Fisa Law. That caused an uproar that nearly derailed his campaign at the time and was the first sign of things to come with this administration.

[treestar]

142. Which brings to mind, why should the attacks be on Bush or Obama

or any particular President? I can see the ones on Bush because he signed the law into being, but once it was law, he was as entitled to use it as Obama is now.

This nation let itself be flipped out over security after 911. So it's not right to simply rage at the current President. We as a nation wanted the Patriot Act then - it passed by huge margins. Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it.

We have to live with the consequences and this illustrates that we are a nation that is self governing and thus have to live with consequences of our own earlier decisions - just shuffling it off on current government/president is a cop out and victim-playing.

[premium]

12. It is when it's nothing more than a rubber stamp for the govt. nt.

[premium]

9. The judicial involvment is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the govt.

How the hell are we, the people, supposed to know what the basis of the warrant is when, as citizens, we have no idea how it was arrived at?
Why is the govt. so afraid to release the detail of those warrants?
This issue is not going away and the American people are fired up and pissed off about this.

[geek tragedy]

15. Greater transparency is called for, but that doesn't mean

that the warrants and judiciary are irrelevant in this process.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. Every single FISA request submitted last year, ~1600 or so, was approved

[premium]

30. Once again,

how the hell are we, the people, supposed to know how relevant the warrants and judiciary are when it's all done in secrecy without the oversight of the American people? And don't tell me that the congress is the oversight, they are nothing more than tools for the corp.

[geek tragedy]

34. The problem is that Congress hasn't politicized it enough. nt

[premium]

36. The problem is that the Congress, both sides of the aisle, aren't listening

to the American people.
Like I said, this issue has really fired up the American people and it isn't going away and it has damaged Pres. Obama politically, he could issue an EO today and tell the fed. alphabet org. to knock it the fuck off, I wonder why he hasn't?

[geek tragedy]

37. How widespread is the outrage amongst the American people? nt

[premium]

39. From the people I've had a chance to talk to in my town,

it's a huge outrage, you can say that it's not a big problem all you want, but the sense in the country is that this is fast becoming a big embarrassment for the fed govt.

[geek tragedy]

40. Think back to the NDAA debate from last year.

The Republicans wanted to give Obama more power than he wanted.

[premium]

44. That may be,

but it doesn't excuse the the widespread collection of data on innocent Americans phone records, and Pres. Obama and Congresscritters, Dem and Repug alike, trying to defend and justify this, IMHO, despite the fed. appeals court rulings, unconstitutional program,
Jeeeeeeeez, what ever happened to the outrage of overreach of govt..
I just can't fathom anyone defending this program, just because a "secret FISA court" says it's ok to issue warrants, which the American people have NO RECOURSE to challenge said warrant.

[geek tragedy]

45. Here's the reality:

every President is going to make sure they can say "I did everything within my legal powers to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people."

Regardless of party, that's what's going to happen.

Want to curb the invasion of privacy, curb the power of the executive.

[premium]

47. I'm all for curbing the power of the EB,

but when you have a congress that isn't representing the American people, how do you do that short of revolution?
And don't get me wrong, I don't support armed revolution, but I just don't know what the answer is anymore.
I guess my frustration is showing through.

[geek tragedy]

48. It takes constant lobbying and agitating.

And it takes Congress being more adversarial on executive's war authority.

[premium]

49. On principle, I agree with you there,

but it doesn't seem to be working, and watching Pres. Obama trying to justify the program leaves me little hope that anything will change.

[geek tragedy]

51. Obama's not the one to check his own authority.

No President will do that. It's just not how that institution works. Never has been.

[premium]

53. But he could check his own authority,

he could issue an EO today to the fed. agencies to knock it the fuck off and no longer collect data on innocent Americans phone records, why doesn't he?

[geek tragedy]

55. And then suppose two weeks later a terrorist bomb goes off in Grand Central Station.

Result?

[premium]

59. WTF does this have to do with innocent americans phone records?

Are we at the point where we suspect all Americans of being terrorists now? According to DC, all Americans are now all suspects, and how do we know this? Because the NSA, with the approval of the legislative and executive branch, have authorized the data collection of Americans phone records.
This is outrageous IMHO.

[geek tragedy]

62. No, think the scenario through:

Obama says: "Though it is within my legal authority and has been blessed by Congress, I am suspending the data mining program to respect the privacy of Americans."

two weeks later, a devastating terror attack occurs.

What do you think the political fallout and resulting policy enactments would be?

[premium]

64. Ok, so we trade our rights for security?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin said it correctly and it still applies today.

[geek tragedy]

68. I'm saying, for political and institutional reasons any scaling back

of the security state has to begin in Congress, and it has to have a decent amount of bipartisan support. That's what it will take.

[premium]

73. Agreed, and, hopefully, this revelation is the beginning of it. nt.

[geek tragedy]

76. Indeed. Here's a sad paradox.

In order to get the program scaled back, Obama has to oppose scaling it back.

Reason: The "do the opposite of what Obama wants" rule for the GOP.

[randome]

69. The 'political fallout' geek tragedy refers to would be this.

Republican outrage that would be so overwhelming, they would glide into power again for ANOTHER 30 years.

Are you willing to trade phone record metadata for that? Think hard about it.

If we don't like the Patriot Act, we need to change it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[premium]

88. I agree that we need to, either change the Patriot Act,

or, repeal it, but it's hard to impossible to do that when we have Dems and Repubs who vote for renewal every time it comes up.
I guess I'm just frustrated by the lack of true representation in govt. by either side of the aisle.

[randome]

116. A sustained, focused effort could do the job.

But I don't see that enough people are willing to spend the time and energy on something like this. It's one thing to express outrage on a discussion forum. Another to put real pressure on members of Congress.

Someone needs to step up and be willing to lead the effort.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[RobinA]

50. I Can't Fathom

it either, and what I'm reading on this so-called liberal forum isn't particularly heartening. There is no hope.

[premium]

57. I'm in tears of frustration that so many Americans

are willing to accept this because a "secret FISA court" has said it's ok, even though the American people have no idea how these warrants are issued, or what recourse one has to dispute the warrant.

[Aerows]

77. It stuns me

that people are so frightened of having Republicans elected when their Democratic leaders are acting just like them.

Jesus Christ people. Either walk the talk or don't bother. If my privacy is violated by an R, and is then violated by a D, what the fuck difference does it make to elect either one of them?

[SunSeeker]

111. Phone meta data disclosure pales in comparison to loss of healthcare and marriage rights...

And the long term damage caused by wingnut appointments to the Supreme Court...and the endless wars that a Republican administration would bring.

[Aerows]

114. How do you know

that public officials aren't already being blackmailed by people having access to that meta data and causing that anyway? Because that is extremely easy to accomplish if you get the right meta data on the right person.

[SunSeeker]

119. I base my position on reality, not conspiracy theories. nt

[Aerows]

122. Do you really think

that people don't exploit private data they glean from any source possible? Wow.

[SunSeeker]

129. Do you really think it is worth losing marriage and abortion rights and being stuck in endless wars

under the inevitable Republican administration that would come in after the next major attack on U.S. soil? Wow.

[Aerows]

133. I refused to excuse this under Bush

I refuse to excuse it under Obama, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. A violation of the 4th Amendment to spy on Americans is a violation of the 4th Amendment to spy on Americans and is so wide open for exploitation and abuse that it's not worth it.

Do you think that you would have abortion rights and marriage rights without privacy? Because I don't think everyone wants to announce loudly that they've had an abortion nor does everyone that is gay want to be tossed out of the closet. Just because I'm out doesn't mean that everyone wants to be, and I wasn't always out, either.

Loss of privacy also pretty much means the end of many rights, not just those two. Search and seizure laws are also nothing to sneeze at, unless you support opening the door and letting "authorities" search your drawers in your bedroom for anything they might find interesting.

[SunSeeker]

138. Phone meta data disclosure does not equal storm troopers in your bedroom..

You'll need a Republican administration for that.

[Aerows]

89. Wait for it

Here is the new talking point. It's a rope-a-dope to "politicize" it and outrage the American people. It's 11 dimensional chess, and not partisan at all!

[treestar]

143. Like the classified documents leaked

how on the other hand are we to be able to oversight them? They can hardly publish them in the newspapers - it would no longer be useful. Intelligence is inherently covert. The FISA act and other laws do attempt to provide some oversight.

It you're going to resort to our government always being corporate tools, there's no arguing with you. Why worry about the Bill of Rights at all then? It's hopeless as the corporatists have taken over.

How can this country or any country exist in the 21st century without some spies? Look at the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

[treestar]

85. Maybe some of the requests are not approved

Not every warrant is issued, either.

[premium]

115. How would we know?

It is, after all, a secret court, not subject to scrutiny by the American people and, no recourse for the American people to find out.

[treestar]

121. Presumably the American people thought the purpose was to catch terrorists

and were not seeing themselves as victims of government overreach. We don't have to agree, but the intent was not to spy on political opponents. In fact there is little or no point in that as our society is open enough that we can find out a lot about anyone running for office.

[premium]

124. I agree that the original intent wasn't to spy on innocent Americans

but it seems to have turned into that.

[morningfog]

31. A warrant for all data of all users everyday is no better than no different than no

warrant. The double-think here is really something to behold.

[sabrina 1]

56. So you're okay with your government issuing a secret warrant to spy on you and your loved ones

for reasons completely unknown to you? What is the purpose of all this? Forget the justifications for secret warrants that are kept secret for 25 years, and explain the REASON for all of this?

I have a theory, which is all I have because I live in a country with as secret government, but I can still speculate now that someone has exposed, thankfully, what they are up to.

I'd like to hear your theory, because that's all it can since you too live in a country with a secret government doing secret things so I understand that you can only speculate also. I'm just at a loss as to what is so important that it could justify this garbage, maybe you can offer some logical reason for it??

[randome]

2. I would bet 25 years is a standard declassification date.

You or anyone else, I suppose, are free to sue about the Patriot Act. Funny how it's survived all these years, though.

If Obama had curtailed the program and there was a terrorist attack on the U.S., do you realize we would have ANOTHER 30 years of Republican rule after that?

He is not to be blamed for using the tools that Congress gave him.

If you want the Patriot Act to be repealed, start the ball rolling.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

6. And that needs to change

Say, 4 years? At least then we can hold people responsible and they will quit doing things like this. 25 years is way too long. And why is something like this top secret anyway?

Hell no. This needs to change. 4 years. 5 years. That's understandable. But 25 years? No.

[randome]

10. Start a petition or something. I'll sign it.

I can understand it being top secret for the duration of the program. Some terrorists aren't too smart and might think they can use cell phones that can't be tracked. No need to take that away from them.

Hell, a lot of DUers did not understand their call data was stored by Verizon.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

22. I would

but I'll probably get put on the no-fly list if I do.

I hope some of the deniers and apologists realize that this is what it is coming to if you say one word in dissent.

[jeff47]

94. Your bet is correct.

Standard durations are 5, 10, 25, 50 and 75 years depending on the content.

Wikipedia's articles on the subject are surprisingly thorough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declassification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

[NYC_SKP]

5. I think it's a big fucking mess and nobody is doing their job. That, and the terrorists won.

Osama Bin Laden and Bush Cheney and the other terrorists got what they wanted and we didn't stop them.

Time to pressure all of our electeds and the courts to get off their asses while there's still time.

[Aerows]

11. This is what happens

When justice gets thrown by the wayside and there are so many avenues to evade it, like setting the release date to 25 years from now when the judge will likely be gone and so will everyone that committed the injustice will be beyond the statute of limitations.

When you don't hold people accountable when they commit an injustice. That's not justice.

[Rex]

24. Like the 8 years of unlawfulness under the BFEE.

One could only hope this does not become the status quo. That just smells bad.

[NYC_SKP]

58. Yup. 25 years is remarkably bullshitty. What the Fuck? I mean really?

What they've done, it seems, is taken some precedent, like the JFK assassination files or some shit, that may have had (arguably) some credible reason to keep secret for some time, and applied it to this.

Applied to this, Aerows, and how many other yet to be discovered operations???

Arghhhhh!

[KoKo]

139. ...a tangled web of them, I'd guess...

brings to mind:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

(I think that's the quote)

But, it's possible the web of corruption and deception is now so vast and growing that the possibility of unravels becomes even greater. More "leakers" who might not be so easily caught when the enterprise becomes that enormous.

[NYC_SKP]

144. Good point, KoKo. If the quality of their PowerPoint slides is any indication...

Their whole miserable thing will come unglued before long!

[KoKo]

148. Fingers Crossed....

[randome]

18. We can't even get Congress to pass a budget!

They are losers all!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[uponit7771]

43. +1

[Rex]

8. Seriously? Where did you find out that information?

Why would they even keep it classified? If it was a general sweep of the population, then the warrant should not merit uber secret hiding status.

[Aerows]

13. It's on the top secret leaked "warrant"

"To be declassified in 2038"

[Rex]

20. Holyshit.

That sends up all kinds of red flags imo.

[Aerows]

23. The whole thing sends up red flags.

Especially the breadth of the warrant. Every fucking body on the Verizon business network.

Um, what? Where is probable cause for everybody?

[jeff47]

95. 25 years is a standard classification duration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declassification

[Aerows]

99. This should have been 5

So why set it at 25 if you don't want to keep it secret for a hell of a long time, until no one can be held accountable?

[jeff47]

104. Duration depends on the classification guide.

5 is only used for things that are utterly moot very quickly.

For example, the final plans for an attack on a specific place during a war - the attack already occurred, so the plans don't need extra-long protection.

Depending on which classification guide was used, there will be a different minimum classification duration. The Wiki article on classification is actually surprisingly thorough if you want to read more.

[Rex]

118. Says by default 10 years.

25 and 50 years...geez that is far too long.

[Aerows]

123. Ten years

and someone could probably go to jail or at least get fired. That's probably why 25 years seemed comfortable for all involved.

[Rex]

125. Should be 5 years imo or some only 1 year.

Way too long...50?!?

[Aerows]

127. Don't want anyone to have to go to jail

or get fired, now would you?

[Rex]

130. Not the select few, no, brilliant way to cover all tracks

the rest of us that work for a living, jailtime before conviction.

[jeff47]

147. Keep in mind what's classified.

For example, the names of dissidents working with the US that were leaked by Manning. You probably don't want to have to make those public after only 10 years - the dissident is probalby still alive, as is the regime they were working against.

Some lovely spots around the world, such as North Korea, have the concept of sentencing someone and their children for crimes against the state. Even if the kids haven't done anything. So, if you piss off lil' Kim, you and your 6-year-old get life in prison. In those kinds of situations, you really, really don't want the dissident's name becoming public for a very long time.

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Is AQ a "shell of its former self" as we've been told?

Government actions say not only no, but HELL no. Otherwise, WHY the need for such invasive surveillance?

[Aerows]

17. Yeah, but if you can put off

any of this from coming to light for 25 years, it's all just fine.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Yup. n/t

[Aerows]

26. Bump

[Prism]

35. It's only the 4th amendment. No biggie.

We still have plenty of rights!

It bothers me how ok partisans are with this. Partisanship is how we got into this mess in the first place.

[Aerows]

38. I don't know how anyone

could be partisan about this unless they are absolutely blind about what it could do to their own party and their own citizenship. It boggles my mind how some defend this.

[Prism]

41. It's a carefully planned game.

You cannot walk forward towards an authoritarian state without both the right and left feet. So Bush made it ok for his side, now Obama will do it with ours, and on we march to a shell of a constitutional Republic.

I'm really stymied on how we can break this cycle. We keep saying something's gotta give, but it never seems to.

We have a cowardly legislature and an unchecked executive that gets rubber stamped by the judicial. The three branches are failing. The "fourth branch" was supposed to pick up the slack, but they seem impotent and easily distracted.

I'm not a doom and gloom type, but we need to come up with a fifth branch pretty damn quick if we want to maintain a recognizable country with a government answerable to the people.

[Demo_Chris]

52. How can one get a warrant to search everyone?

Hell, why not just find a judge who will grant a blanket search warrant for every building and person in America, forever. Why not a blanket arrest warrant? Apparently some people believe that this is ALL that is legally required to eradicate the Constitution.

[Aerows]

54. You forgot the part

about delaying it being made public for 25 years, to boot.

I know - it makes no fucking sense to me how this could be Constitutional in any stretch of the imagination.

[Demo_Chris]

61. true. nt

[jeff47]

98. They aren't. They're getting a warrant to search the phone companies.

The data belongs to Verizon, not Verizon's customers.

[Aerows]

103. That's a new one

I guess the US Post Office has a right to keep track of everyone you send mail to. You know, I don't see that in the Terms and Conditions of Verizon "We hold the right to submit all records of your phone conversations to the US Government, and we retain the rights to all of that data" listed there.

I wonder why I don't see that.

[jeff47]

105. Yep, they do.

The companies that provide various services to you can keep track of your use of those services. That has always been true. Remember 10 years ago when everyone was worried about how much Google knew about each of us?

You know, I don't see that in the Terms and Conditions of Verizon "We hold the right to submit all records of your phone conversations to the US Government, and we retain the rights to all of that data" listed there.

You need to read it more carefully. Because they disclose that they keep records of your calls, and that those records may be turned over to the government as required by law.

[Aerows]

108. Since you are so well-versed

Could you please provide a link where it says that, and also copy-paste the exact text so that no one can subver... I mean get confused?

I'll wait over here for you to do that, but I won't be holding my breath. I'll also be prepared to offer you some links to the FCC when you do, just so that everyone else is also clear on Federal Communications.

Please, proceed.

[jeff47]

146. You already claimed to have a copy. You can't search for "government"?

Since I'm not currently a verizon customer, I no longer have access to their TOS. But since you already claimed to have reviewed it, you could just search for the word "government".

[tridim]

63. Not claiming it's "better", just that it's 100% legal.

And the recent NSA revelation not nearly as bad as people are claiming, and not anywhere near as bad as Bush's warrantless wiretapping, which was illegal.

[Aerows]

66. OMG

You think a warrant for probable cause active on tens of millions of Americans is legal under the 4th Amendment, combined with that warrant being hidden from the very people it was enacted upon for 25 years?

Wow. Real legal scholar we have in you.

[tridim]

71. No, I'm stating that the NSA is currently acting legally, while Bush acted illegally.

Can you please post a link to the federal warrant that lists "tens of millions of Americans", or even a link referencing said warrant would work.

[Aerows]

78. You state legally

There isn't a damn thing legal about this under the 4th Amendment. But I give you points for trying. At least you didn't blather about "security" and how the Democrats are so much better than Republicans when both violate our privacy.

Oh wait, you did.

[OnyxCollie]

72. Bush's warrantless wiretapping was illegal

until Obama and the Democrats voted to make it legal.

[okaawhatever]

67. Oh, hey let's get everyone worked up over a total misconception. We use the warrant listed in the

Guardian to STORE data. The data only includes phone numbers and times, not even names and no content. If they want to go into that database, they must have a warrant specifying what they want and their probably cause. It does not involve calls between American citizens. It only involves international calls. Does printing the truth not serve your purpose? How many people have to die before you think it's okay to use a secret court?

[Luminous Animal]

96. The warrant specifically states that national and local calls are covered.

[Aerows]

97. It most certainly does

It involves calls in the US, local and statewide, and calls by people in the US to foreign countries. I have no idea what you read, but I know what I read. I also brought up the 25 years thing, which was what some people were trying to pass off as justification ("but there's a warrant"!).

I'm clearing up some of the talking points that are deliberately trying to misinform people. You are using one of them - the "it's not people in the US", not that it would be less heinous if it was just US citizens calling people in foreign countries. What the fuck do local calls need to be monitored for? What does it matter if John Doe calls his grandmother in Atlanta from Savannah?

You are welcome, I'm glad I could clear that misconception up for you, because I'm sure you had only the best intentions for interjecting that into the conversation.

[jeff47]

100. You need to ensure you don't do the same.

I'm clearing up some of the talking points that are deliberately trying to misinform people.

25 years is a standard duration for classification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declassification

[Aerows]

102. This isn't at that level by any means

and they had the opportunity to set it at 5 or 7 years, too. It makes it extremely fishy that it was set long after anyone could be accountable for doing it.

That is the main point, here.

[jeff47]

107. Depends on the classification guide.

The rules for duration are quite detailed. And in an admittedly Orwellian situation, those rules are also classified.

[treestar]

79. It's a system

A true Big Brother state would not have that - they'd just spy on everyone. There are at least checks and balances to stop them abusing it by spying on their political opponents - that is the only true danger with any government surveillance. There have to be checks and balances to make sure it is at least about crime or terrorism.

[Aerows]

84. Uh, they are spying on everybody

A warrant that is dated to hide said spying for 25 years when no one can be held accountable for that spying is no better than not having one at all, because... no one can be held accountable.

See, I know I'm weird, but when people egregiously break the law and violate the privacy of tens of millions of Americans, I want someone held accountable, and I don't care what party they belong to.

I know, that's a rare quality, but I don't exactly ask the party affiliation of someone who commits arson or robbery either before I decide maybe they need to go to jail so that they can't do that shit and to discourage others from doing it, either.

I know - I'm strange.

[treestar]

90. There are always spies

"They" have been "spying" for years. To some degree, we need that - national security has always called for spying. That's how the CIA exists. If they spy on you, they don't find anything. You're boring. They won't have much interest and move on. They are looking for something else.

It was bad during the communist era and we survived that - it's not nearly as bad now. I would think the main complainants would be Muslims.

When the Boston Bombing occurred, there were people mad that the government had not spied enough on Tamerlan, and the mosque in which he had a meltdown.

Come on, people just want to complain without thinking. Doesn't matter if it is inconsistent. They just like to be victims of some imaginary totalitarian government. We don't have that here and it takes some big exaggeration to make it up

[Aerows]

93. And some people

want to justify without thinking or they think VERY hard to come up with ways to dismiss illegal behavior because it makes things politically convenient.

I'm not one of those people. I don't like it when people I work hard to get elected do shit that would get everyone else in the private sector sent to jail. I also don't like precedents are set that affect tens of millions of American lives are enacted by a Constitutional lawyer that taught it who should damn well know better.

[treestar]

132. There's no illegal behavior here

Constitutional lawyers will disagree, as they would argue both sides of a case where any government action is before a court.

Someone has to be aggrieved by a government action, such as criminally prosecuted, or lose money.

In fact the people arguing this case as plaintiffs are having a hard time proving standing:

https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

[Aerows]

134. The hell there isn't

And now that this has been brought out into the open via a leak, not "I meant to do that, now we can debate it", I'd imagine there will be more than one lawsuit against both the government and Verizon.

This is ripe for abuse and exploitation doing record gathering on tens of millions of Americans with no probable cause other than they have a phone. And if you think it is only Verizon doing it, I have a bridge to sell you. PRISM is neither legal nor ethical, either, and the stink you are seeing raised on DU is going to seem like daisies once people get over the rage and start sinking their teeth into this.

[villager]

81. The hamster wheels have been spinning with these new talking points all morning.

They're dutiful, if nothing else...

[still_one]

83. What would your approach be?

[Aerows]

101. Get an individual warrant

if you have probable cause. Have a judge sign off on it.

Don't classify said warrant for 25 years until no one can be held accountable. That's exactly what my approach would be.

If that makes you squeamish, it should, because having people's privacy invaded unnecessarily should always make law enforcement and the justice department squeamish.

Oh, and fat lot of good any of this did for Boston, even when Russian intelligence agencies warned us two times. Do you still think this is for "public safety"? I don't.

[still_one]

109. Appreciate that you provided a solution. Perhaps when this debate takes place in Congress something

Like that will happen, but I am skeptical, since congress in the recent past showed no inclination to change the patriot act

[Aerows]

112. Well it was a BRILLIANT

move by the Obama administration to orchestrate this leak that they so obviously wanted to have happen so that the American people can debate it and be outraged. I'm sure everyone at the NSA is thrilled this has happened, too. Because they meant to do that.

[jeff47]

150. The data is gone after 3 months.

(duration depends on phone company. 3 months is the shortest.)

So individual warrants aren't that helpful - if you're trying to track down a (start sinister music) terror cell, you'll need a longer time frame.

IMO, it would be better to require the individual companies to store it for 5 years. That way it's available, but not in the government's hands until there's a specific warrant.

Oh, and fat lot of good any of this did for Boston, even when Russian intelligence agencies warned us two times. Do you still think this is for "public safety"? I don't.

This information isn't very good for predicting attacks. What it is good for is quickly locating co-conspirators after an attack.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

86. How do we get to truly debate this with so much politics in the mix?

It's a power play for some, and real concerns of privacy for others. I think Obama is really trying to do the best job he can given all the players and existing laws. Getting to the heart of the matter would require sincere concerns for national security in this age of shared information and I don't think we'll ever come to a consensus

[Aerows]

91. I'm glad you guys took my advice

NOW, the talking point is that this was all done to make the American people talk about it and debate it. They meant to do that!

It's a rope-a-dope, 11 dimensional chess move! It's brilliance!

[Aerows]

106. Keep trying

So far I've heard "25 years is a standard period of time". Yes, well, so is 5 years, 7 years, and many other different periods of time. But 5 and 7 would put somebody in political and legal jeopardy.

I've heard "Hurray, this was a brilliant move, now the public can debate it!" Uh, it was a leak. "I meant to do that" is rather hilarious at this point.

Now I've heard that the data belongs to Verizon. Did you know that? When you sign the terms and conditions of your contract with Verizon and every other phone company it says in the contract that they own that data and can hand it over to the US Government at any time without your knowledge. Did you read that? You're right, I didn't either.

Come on, guys, you can do better than those three!

[On the Road]

110. So Per Your Reasoning,

there is no difference between a local wiretap with a warrant and one without a warrant simply because as a member of the pubic you don't know about it?

[Aerows]

113. As a member of the

"pubic" (sorry I make typos, too, and that was rather funny) I'd like to know about it before 25 years has passed and no one can be held accountable by a huge breach of the 4th amendment.

(sorry for the typo snark, I make them too)

[cstanleytech]

131. *scratches head* Ok could you try and explain that again please.

We are talking about the 25 year thing to reveal details about the warrant issue right? If so then I share that sentiment but what I dont get is the part where you said " huge breach of the 4th amendment." because to have that happen then that would mean we would be talking about the government not actually having any warrant, not even a FISA one.
Or are you talking about what Bush did when he didnt even get FISA warrants?

[Aerows]

137. How do you have probable cause

which is why you have a warrant in the first place, if you enact it on tens of millions of people at once? And then you hide the warrant from public view for 25 years.

How does that not violate search and seizure laws? Oh, and the Verizon one is the one we KNOW about. Do you think AT&T and everybody else didn't get served one, too?

[cstanleytech]

140. How to have probably cause for the collection of phone numbers

that are allegedly only looked into if something indicates the number might have ties to terrorists?
Not recording of conversations because Obama has been clear to say no one is listening in on those (thats what News Corp does ) but rather simply a collection of phone numbers called but why hide it for 25 years? Well clearly you want a guess because I havent seen the warrant or its details is it might have something to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
We live in a world where this ^^ type of thing does happen and we have only a few choices.


#1 We let the government do their jobs and try not to micromanage them so much that causes them to miss someone planning another 9 11 thus sucking us into another Afghanistan type issue that then leads to things like thousands of innocent civilians dead as well as thousands of soldiers.

Or

#2 We try to micromanage every aspect and 2nd guess our governments decisions and get prepared for another 9 11 incident and all that follows it.


Oh and as to how it doesnt violate it it is because it still is going through the FISA courts, sucks but so far the regular courts havent said that the FISA courts are illegal.

[On the Road]

141. I am Sure You Would Like to Know About it

but the government has been listening in on people's calls (as opposed to collecting phone logs) for over a century now. Few people seem to have a problem with it, largely because a warrant is required.

Information on local wiretaps is not routinely distrbuted, and few people know if they have been a subject of a warrant. Whether you have a constitutional right to information on wiretaps has not been decided by the courts:

...courts have not been clear about whether the public has a right to review warrants and related materials. Indeed, in a series of cases arising out of the same 1988 investigation, different federal appellate courts came to very different conclusions.

[small]http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/SJWARRANTS.pdf[small]

It doesn't sound like the FISA warrants are being any more restrictive with information than either local law enforcement or other federal investigations of criminal investigations or terrorist groups.

On the other hand, if your phone call data is captured while making an international call to a location covered by a warrant, do you really want that distributed to the general public? Is that protecting privacy?

[KoKo]

149. What's going on now with our Tech Revolution is way beyond what you are

talking about. You are thinking about the Al Capone days and Herbert Hoover times. Our technology age has come so fast that the legal system just can't keep up with it to provide protections for consumers. There are some Think Tanks and Legal Scholars working on it...and EFF has addressed this. Our Govt. can't keep up with it...but, the Private Outsourcing companies (our Govt. is using to "save money" are having a grand old time exploiting the legal holes in Data Collection on private citizens.

[DCKit]

152. And they'll just renew it every year so that 25 years is always down the road.

We've always had scumbags and psychopaths in government. Time to take them out of government.