NSA-gate: What did Obama do?

[ucrdem]

Answer: here's what Obama did --

When campaigning for President 2008, then senator Obama vigorously attacked President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and vowed to stop the practice.

That is exactly what he did.

President Obama returned to the policies before President Bush of using the Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter FISA law to obtain warrants wherever this kind of surveillance would be performed.

Feel better now? More essential background and analysis in stevenleser's excellent NSA piece posted in the BOG. I just kicked it up but here's the direct link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510

Audio link, too! Having just read it I can say that it provides an infinitely deeper understanding of the FISA issue than any of the Greenwald or Snowden defenses posted here. Highly recommended.

[think]

1. and now 22 democratic senators are asking very specific questions in writing

about the secret laws you seem to so adamantly support. funny thing about the timing of the writing of the letter & the release of documents by a certain whistleblower. could there be any possible connection?




http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-06-28/senators-want-public-answers-on-nsa-surveillance

[ucrdem]

2. Yes, naturally there's a connection.

NSA-gate is the scandal of the hour, nicely designed to suck the air out of any news about anything the Obama administration might be doing or accomplishing, like every other scandal of the hour.

Senators are politicians, politicians have constituencies, constituencies watch CNN and FOX and read Business Week.

Does that help?

[think]

3. They also read the NSA website while looking for truth...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130624/17374523600/senators-to-nsa-your-fact-sheet-isnt-factual-can-you-tell-us-truth-once.shtml

[ucrdem]

4. I imagine they'll get a response, too, if they haven't already.

I don't see a problem with this.

[think]

15. No. I'm sure you don't

[msongs]

5. OMG everyone's out to get Obama's administration. round up the usual supects nt

[ucrdem]

7. I can't speak for the signatories

but such a letter doesn't strike me as particularly damaging, and is probably advisable if their constituents pants are on fire.

[cali]

27. let me point out that Sentor Leahy has been concerned about the

issue of NSA surveillance for well over a decade and has introduced several bills to limit it in that period. He was concerned about it before the President was even a U.S. Senator and I imagine he'll continue to address it whoever assumes the Presidency after Obama.

[pnwmom]

39. Of course there's a connection. This is another fake scandal that they have to try to address. n/t

[think]

40. If all it took was tenacity you'd be a champ.

[snot]

6. This is the first I've heard that FISA went back to Carter.

What was the FISA law that Obama voted for when he was a Senator?

[OnyxCollie]

8. It's the FISA law of 1978.

The FISA law that Obama voted for was the one that gave retroactive immunity to the telecoms that assisted Bush in illegal surveillance.

The one that Obama promised he would filibuster, then lied and voted for it anyway.

If Harry Reid had not brought up that bill, the FISA amendments would have sunset, returning FISA to pre-Bush status.

[ucrdem]

10. Yes, the FISA bill was submitted in May '77 and signed into law by Carter in Oct. '78,

per stevenleser's piece linked in the OP. A little more on the history:

I mark the beginning as May 18, 1977, the day Ted Kennedy submitted the FISA bill to the Senate. The FISA bill, also known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is describe in Wikipedia as prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism. In practice, it sets up secret courts through which intelligence agencies can obtain warrants for surveillance of individuals and groups suspected of engaging in any kind of espionage and foreign sponsored or connected terrorist activities harmful to US National Security.

Six Democrats and three Republicans cosponsored the bill and it was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter October 25th, 1978.

Hearing about FISA in a vacuum without any other information would probably cause most people to believe that FISA has the strong potential to violate the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In fact, FISA was created to strengthen the fourth amendment and I will explain how.

FISA was created by Ted Kennedy for two reasons. First, it was created as a response to President Nixon using warrantless wiretaps and other searches to target political opponents and activist groups. The other reason it was created was made clear by one of the US Court of appeals decisions that affirmed the constitutionality of FISA, and that is the 1984 US v Duggan decision. Part of the Duggan decision reads:

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

The Duggan decision goes on to list six or seven other appeals court decisions where courts concluded that the President has the inherent power to conduct this kind of warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information.

Senator Kennedy and President Carter did not like the idea of warrantless wiretapping even though it was judged in the case of foreign espionage and terrorism to be Constitutional …so they created FISA which requires the Justice Department and intelligence agencies of the executive branch to get a judge to sign off on a warrant in order to conduct these surveillances. It also gives a number of congressional committees the ability to look over these warrants.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. You believe Obama? Who signed the NDAA section 1021 allowing for the indefinite detention of US

citizens with neither trial nor representation,

ah hell. I've posted these facts so many times I'm sick of it. You win. Obama is as pure as the driven snow and the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments did not come to an end on Obama's watch. He loves them, would defend them with his very something or other, I guess.



Take a look at my Journal for what I've already posted, for links and facts about the abomination he has helped bring about.

[ucrdem]

11. Yes, but the NDAA is a separate issue, no?

Not sure why you're posting about it here.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Goes to motive. He signed it twice, and sent lawyers to defend section 1021 in court

after Chris Hedges sued over it and a judge ruled it unConstitutional.

Obama sent lawyers to reinstate an unConstitutional edict. He's probably set to sign this as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

I smell a Trend. A highly definite Trend. Again, check my Journal for more regarding the death of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States under Obama's watch.

[ucrdem]

17. Have you convinced yourself that Obama has committed a crime?

That's really T-bag territory. As for l'affaire NDAA, I don't know the ins and outs of it, apart from what I've seen Chomsky and Hedges babble about, and on that basis, I'd very strongly suspect that it's another no-there-there ratfuck like all their others, including NSA-gate. But I'll be happy to try to sort it out next chance I get.

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. Firstly, I'm an Occupier, not a tea fuck, so kindly apologize. Leading with insults? Poor.

I put it to you to question why your attitude is "I'd strongly suspect", versus "I have read it and I know as fact".

Again, and for the last time, for all the actual good it will do: The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution have been eliminated on Obama's watch. Articles and facts regarding this have been presented here in GD for months upon months. Obama has signed some of it into law, or allowed unlawful and unConstitutional acts to occur and continue under his watch. Obama is guilty of this, so yes, he has clearly either allowed or committed crimes (unless you look at twisting of the law to make the illegal, legal. "When the President does it, that means it is not a crime." ~Richard M. Nixon, another who was really into collecting others' information).

[ucrdem]

20. "Goes to motive" suggests that you're discussing a criminal action by the US president.

And the US president currently happens to be a Democrat working more vigorously to advance Democratic goals than any president since JFK. And that my friend is 100% black-helicopter UN-takeover T-bag territory.

[ucrdem]

21. Oh wait, you HAVE convinced yourself Obama has committed a crime,

and more than one:

so yes, he has clearly either allowed or committed crimes

[Aerows]

30. Again

you haven't been here nearly long enough to call long term DU members "tea baggers". Not at all.

[Aerows]

29. You haven't been here

*nearly* long enough to be accusing Fire Walk With Me of being a tea bagger. FWWM is an activist, and tirelessly updates the board with information of liberal interest.

You need to apologize and get your facts straight before you start accusing long-term DU activists of being teahadists.

What have *YOU* done lately except be an apologist for the NSA spying on American citizens? Because I haven't seen you do anything else, yet, in the handful of months you've been here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Cute, now you call long term DU'ers

Tea baggers...very cute

[pnwmom]

42. That's nonsense. They're two separate issues. n/

[Fire Walk With Me]

43. Your house is on fire. It is burning to the ground. Wake up and do something to save it.

How many Americans are comfortable with the genuine loss of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments of the Constitution? Too many, apparently. Do some research right here on DU in GD and you'll see it clearly, if you've somehow missed its lengthy discussion. Do something to help stop the destruction of the country under the Bush/Neocon/Corporate doctrine.

[pnwmom]

44. I grew up in a generation where they had us get under desks to protect against a nuclear attack.

We're living in a dangerous world.

[Fire Walk With Me]

46. The greatest danger is for everyone to give all power to Bush and the corporations

who are using such fear to convince us to give them all power. This is a power grab based upon fear. No amount of dismantling the Constitution will make us safer, especially from the people who need it dismantled to grab all power.

I would ask you to view Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" if you've not yet done so...

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. So instead of a commie you got a terrorist under the bed

[pnwmom]

54. The threat of nuclear war was all too real

and so is the threat of terrorism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. The threat of nuclear war was very real...ironically...actually really

In 1989 iirc...well after the wall was down due to an interstellar phenomena. And are you seriously comparing terrorism to nuclear war?

Yup...bin Ladin won...he is laughing at the US from beyond the grave.

It is actually hilarious and tragic at the same time.

[pnwmom]

57. Do you seriously think terrorists can't get hold of nuclear materials?

They couldn't cause a blast like at Hiroshima, but they could make a city uninhabitable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. You are still comparing an extinction level event

That s what nuclear war quite possibly is, with a dirty bomb.



By the way...huge free freaking clue...while horrific, it will not make a city uninhabitable...it will make a section of a city uninhabitable until clean up...but like forever...not really.

Damn, thanks...now I know what you fear. OBL is having a good laugh. HE WON!!!!

Might I suggest you stop fearing hog-goblins and other ghosts in the night and embrace a lot more FDR.

"The only thing to fear...is fear itself."

Now I gotta say...I pity you...I mean it. And any other human being so afraid that they are willing to give up any and all rational thought.

[jazzimov]

12. kick!

[snot]

14. So no warrantless wiretapping is happening now? No collection, just in case

the feds want to have a look later?

[ucrdem]

16. No evidence of any has been brought forward, no.

And if there were any evidence I'm 100% certain it would be in 24/7 rotation on every channel by now.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. You aren't serious, are you? Six corporations, including Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, own

the vast majority of US media, and publish pretty much only what they wish people to see.

For example:





You trust the government and media? Then search the web for "pruit igoe spraying".

[ucrdem]

22. What the heck is that supposed to mean?

And if you can't be bothered to explain the significance of "Pruit Igoe" which incidentally was demolished long ago then why toss it in?

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. You cannot enter "pruit igoe spraying" into an internet search engine to learn why it is foolish

to trust the government?

Yeah, I thought so. Buh-bye.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/339573/3/I-Team-The-Armys-secret-Cold-War-experiments-on-St-Louisans-

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. Article from Friday in Business Insider

...

On December 31, 2012, an official with the NSA's Special Source Operations (SSO) described a surveillance program codenamed ShellTrumpet that "began [five years prior] as a near-real-time metadata analyzer … for a classic collection system," according to documents obtained by The Guardian.

The official noted that ShellTrumpet had just "processed its One Trillionth metadata record" and was being used "across the Agency."

Basically, the NSA is collecting bulk Internet metadata — Greenwald and Ackerman note that "it is hard to distinguish email metadata from email content" (emphasis ours) — and then processing it to spy on American citizens.

...

The December 2012 document stated that almost half of those trillion pieces of internet metadata were processed that year.

...

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-processed-1-trillion-pieces-of-data-2013-6

Noting the date on this document referred to, clearly, the surveillance is still ongoing now. But maybe you'd like to argue that 500 billion warrants were obtained last year?

[DCBob]

25. "it is hard to distinguish email metadata from email content" -- No its not.

Every email has a clearly defined header that includes the metadata. The content is in the body of the mail, completely separate.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. They are talking about the dispute over whether subject lines are content or metadata.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

That is not a dispute among any bunch of people arguing on the internet, it is a dispute among the legal authorities who have direct responsibility for the programs.

[DCBob]

33. Its still easy technically to separate that out.

Its defined as the "subject".

[Waiting For Everyman]

34. Disputed among the authorities themselves does not equal "easy" to tell. n/t

[snot]

36. See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820 .

[ucrdem]

37. Props to leveymg for resuscitating that nasty powerpoint

but all I could suss out of his post were the same "doubts" he was expressing here before the Snowden affair. In fact he describes them as such. Nothing against being suspicious, but I don't share those doubts and I'm satisfied with the detailed explanations Obama provided in his June 7 presser and June16 Charlie Rose interview.

[DCBob]

26. Of course the bashers will find some other way to continue bashing.

thanks for the post.

[cali]

28. there's this:

“No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war…”

[ucrdem]

31. Thanks. How can I put this in a way you will understand. Let's try this:

The Bush-Cheney admin did a lot of sneaky, warrant-less spying. That we know. The Obama administration has made considerable effort to clean up the surveillance mess legally, beginning I suppose with Obama's FISA flip-flop in May 2008, which we can now understand now as the first vote of his presidency, coming as it did immediately after he locked up the Dem nomination.

Why would Obama want to absolve Bush-Cheney from their heinous and illegal acts? Probably because that was never part of his agenda. Winding down the wars, shrinking the military, passing some form of ACA, economic recovery, protection of civil rights -- not, incidentally, "civil libertarian ideas" -- are part of his agenda, and those are the issues he's focused on. And I doubt that Hillary or any other Democratic president wouldn't have played it the same way.

So NSA-gate, qu'est-ce que c'est? This: a clearly and unapologetically right-wing bash, period. Greenwald is a right-wing libertarian. Tea-baggers and their second amendment fetishes are right-wing. People who think Obama is worse than Bush, and that includes Chomsky, Scahill, and Hedges, are right-wing.

DU is not right-wing. It may be a big tent, as it should be, but RW propaganda is not welcome here. So why drag all that tea-baggery in and expect anyone but RW trolls to slurp it up?

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. "Chomsky, Scahill, and Hedges, are right-wing."

[Scurrilous]

35. Thanks.

K & R

[pnwmom]

38. Thanks for the link! n/t

[LittleBlue]

41. Cool blog bro

Some random guy on the internet wrote something super dooper in a blog. Thanks for notifying us.

[treestar]

47. Don't expect them to read Steverleser's post.

That would upset their preconceived decisions.

[ucrdem]

48. Thanks treestar... some won't I suppose, and some would if it was shorter,

and to those I say, scroll to the bottom and click the audio link and then you don't have to!

And that's my 1,500th post!

[treestar]

49. Good going!

[ucrdem]

50. 1501 for another milestone!

[MNBrewer]

51. Those warrants aren't legal in anything other than the "newspeak" sense of the word legal.

Actual definition of Legal is classified.

[Zorra]

56. It's not about Obama. nt