OF COURSE the government is collecting metadata. Why is anyone shocked?

[LuckyTheDog]

The public and the media were shocked to discover that the National Security Agency (NSA) continues to collect massive amounts of data from telecom and Internet service providers.

What is really surprising is that anybody would be surprised.

Until USA Patriot Act of 2001 is repealed, it is naïve to assume any president would prevent intelligence agencies from using the tools the act gives them. At best, we can expect some modifications around the edges.

To his credit, President Obama has made some important changes. Unlike his predecessor, Obama is insisting on the use of warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He also has kept Congress informed. However, that’s as much restraint as anyone should expect until courts, lawmakers, or both, take action to stop these practices. It’s not hard to see why.

More here: http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/06/11/nsa-phone-data/

[cantbeserious]

1. Thank You For Sharing - Some Are Less Willing To Place Faith In Secretive Organizations

eom

[magellan]

2. I'm not keen on it either

But I think repealing the Enabling Act would be a good start. Sad that even that much seems impossible with the current crowd in Washington....

[LuckyTheDog]

5. And until the Patriot Act is repealed...

... any president would have to be a complete idiot to order an end to the NSA program. All downside, no upside,

[Uncle Joe]

10. I disagree, downside for keeping the NSA program is increasing day by day

whether it be political, economic, diplomatic and ironically even from a national security standpoint.

[LuckyTheDog]

16. But, seriously...

If the U.S. is hit and the NSA might have prevented it, what do you think the reaction of the public would be if they found out Obama had ended the program? How many would be on the president's side? Very few.

Obama would be impeached and members of his own party would be leading the charge.

[Uncle Joe]

18. In that case there is never any going back, because the "War on Terror"

by its' very definition can have no end.

Thus with other successful future attacks, should the current already invasive, Fourth Amendment eroding NSA policy stay in place, the call for tightening the noose even more will only increase.

With an endless "war," this can't be a static issue, the U.S. is either for more freedom or for less.

If we're for less, our position in the world will only erode as we lose any moral high ground and we will rot from the inside, just like the Soviet Union and/or go rabid seeing enemies behind every tree.

[randome]

20. We can declare this fake 'war' over any time we want and still chase terrorists.

The best way to accomplish that is to give the Democratic party a majority in the House.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

23. This NSA program will make that less likely to happen.

The private contractors want it, and as the Democratic Party becomes more tied/associated with this unpopular issue, they will face a political head wind.

[LuckyTheDog]

21. Nonsense

If you want to end the NSA program, then you need to direct your outrage at Congress, which could repeal the authority given to the executive branch. Just don't expect the president to end the program on his own. That would be stupid of him.

It also would be dangerous to democracy because we cannot have presidents usurping the authority of the judicial branch by assuming the right to interpret the Constitution.

[Uncle Joe]

24. I have plenty of outrage for Congress, but the Buck doesn't stop with them. n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

27. In this case, it does. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

29. Maybe we can get the Ghost Whisperer to inform the late Harry Truman? n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

34. Did you read the article I linked to?

If not, then please do.

[magellan]

11. I don't like to say it, but I don't see the Enabling Act or the NSA being ended

...without first confronting the problem of corporate influence in politics. They're all bound up together, as are most things that are wrong with our government now.

[LuckyTheDog]

17. Yep (nt)

[think]

31. Until we end the privatization of the spy industry

the Patriot Act will never be repealed.

It's much too lucrative....

[LuckyTheDog]

4. You missed the point

As long as the Patriot Act makes the NSA's activities legal, there is absolutely no upside for any president in ending the program. There is, however, a huge potential downside.

[cantbeserious]

38. Thank You For Sharing - In My Feeble Brain - Hiding Behind The Patriot Act Is Reprehensible

eom

[LuckyTheDog]

42. Did you read the article I linked to?

If not, please do.

Any president would be stupid to unilaterally rein in the NSA. If we were then attacked, that president would be thrown out of office in 10 minutes.

[fadedrose]

3. More threats against this President and his family..

than any other in history.

They need to take them seriously. . .

[Deep13]

6. still a 4th Am. violation nt

[LuckyTheDog]

7. According to whom?

And even if that were true, that's an argument for repealing or striking down the Patriot Act. It is not an argument for ending the NSA program via presidential decree.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

8. Because they are doing it on everyone, and sounds like it goes beyond just meta

[LuckyTheDog]

9. What do you propose?

Do you propose that Obama take it on himself to decide the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and end the NSA program? That would be a very stupid thing for Obama to do.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

12. Do no evil

Follow the constitution.

The patriot act does not authorize mass suspicionless spying.

[LuckyTheDog]

15. The Constitution contradicts itself

It gives the president the duty to protect the country. That's the #1 job of the president.

Interpreting the Fourth Amendment? That's for the courts to do. If Congress passes a law and the courts decide it is constitutional, then the question for the president isn't "do I agree with this interpretation?" The question for the president is "how do I protect the country?"

For a lot of reasons, we don't want presidents deciding on their own what is and is not constitutional.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

32. The oath of office talks about defending the constitution

And I also don't buy the fig-leaf excuse that mass surveillance is to keep us "safe" anyway.

The mass suspicionless spying needs to be challenged and stopped.

[LuckyTheDog]

33. But, again... don't expect any president to stop it

Interpreting the Constitution is not the role of the president. Per the Constitution, the president is not given that power. Judicial power is granted entirely to the courts.

The courts are where this needs to be challenged if Congress will not act. Until the law is changed or thrown out, any president who chooses to ignore it is on very, very shaky ground.

And again, we don't really want to set a precedent for allowing presidents to define what is and is not constitutional.

Read the article I linked to.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. And that's why they want to keep it secret

So it can't be interpreted by the SCOTUS and therefore carry on with their blatantly illegal activities.

Therefore It is entirely within the EXECUTIVE's purview on weather or not to continue to carry on these activities.

SHAME ON THEM!

[cascadiance]

30. And I believe Obama was parsing words when he claimed they weren't "listening" to us...

... that was meant to construe that they weren't capturing all of the data the metadata references for communications of Americans without warrants.

If it is later found that they in fact have recorded and stored all of this data for reference from the metadata where "needed", the defense will be that it was just being "recorded" then and not "listened to" at the time of its gathering. Of course everyone knows the risk that if it is all stored, the metadata will just augment "fishing expeditions" when it serves the PTB's agenda to shut down someone down for whatever personal reasons they may have to do so.

[AZ Progressive]

13. Candidate Obama vs President Obama on Government Surveillance

[LuckyTheDog]

14. He is not doing it w/o a warrant. (nt)

[morningfog]

19. He's just using a data mining warrant that lack any

probable cause. Distinction without a difference.

[LuckyTheDog]

22. Not in the least.

But I don't have the time to explain the law to you. Obama is following FISA. He criticized Bush for NOT following FISA. Obama is not being inconsistent at all.

[uponit7771]

26. This is false, that data with no ID is useless outside of tenuous ties....please don't believe what

...wingers and bashers have said

[pnwmom]

25. And if they were going to be shocked, why weren't they in 2007

and every time the Patriot Act has been renewed -- by large majorities in Congress?

[LuckyTheDog]

35. Apparently not (nt)

[snappyturtle]

28. The Patriot Act is the excuse for collecting the data.imho nt

[Scurrilous]

37. K & R

[NineNightsHanging]

39. Inaccuracies in OP

sorry, that blog post excerpt is incomplete and ill-informed

First "insisting on the use of warrants" is misleading, because FISA has vastly expanded its scope (as per New York Times). These aren't just rulings on individual cases, but a body of secret laws. Which makes Obama complicit due to point 4 below


Second' "kept Congress informed" is another misleading statement. I suggest you read more. Many members weren't informed, and those that were do not get sufficient information. The FISA court in some rulings won't even provide summaries of its decisions


Third- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/president-obama-called-fisa-court-transparent-despite-it-being-shrouded-secrecy


Fourth- The Obama administration has taken proactive steps to increase the secrecy-

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/federal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed


Fifth- It isn't just "meta data", as revealing as that can be

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

[LuckyTheDog]

43. You read only the excerpt?

If so, please read the entire article.

[Cleita]

40. Because most of us didn't get the memo when we become the Soviet Union,

when the old Soviet Union closed shop.

[marions ghost]

41. "Most of us didn't get the memo"...

that's the truth!