"We don’t think the government’s statutory interpretations are even remotely correct. But now that
the government has finally put its legal rationales on the table (seven years after we started trying to get them to), we hope to finally be able to fight this out in the place where competing interpretations of federal statutes should be decided: in the public federal courts where more than one side gets to argue."
"The Administration released a White Paper on Friday that summarized its claimed legal basis for the bulk collection of telephony metadata, also known as the Associational Tracking Program under section 215 of the Patriot Act, codified as 50 U.S.C. section 1861. While well certainly be saying more about this analysis in the future, the paper makes one central point clear:
There is no direct authorization for the Associational Tracking Program in section Patriot Act section 215.
Nowhere does the statute say that the NSA may conduct bulk collection and analysis of the phone records of nonsuspect, nontargeted Americans on an ongoing basis, including requiring the production of records that havent even been produced yet.
It could, of course. Congress could have said that bulk collection is allowed and a properly drafted statute would also define bulk collection in a way that everyone can understand and isn't full of word games. That statute would not have been constitutional (since the program isn't constitutional), but would at least say what the the Administration wishes section 215 did."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/administration-white-paper-associational-tracking-program
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*As a senator, Obama wanted to limit bulk records collection.
*As a senator, Obama wanted to require government analysts to get court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data.
*As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.
*As a senator, Obama wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related to surveillance court orders.
*As a senator, Obama wanted the government to declassify significant surveillance court opinions.
*As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.
*As a senator, Obama wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge government surveillance.
<more>
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-surveillance-reforms-obama-supported-before-he-was-president
Well, lets see what Vice President Biden said about THAT in 2006:
My, my.
What the HELL happened to these guys?
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Both of whom had widespread media coverage, almost makes me believe in Alien Abduction.
midnight
(26,624 posts)find myself speechless... So I will second your response....
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
midnight
(26,624 posts)steps put into place to bring this information to light were ignored... Senator Wyden former staff member says they did a time line that shows that Wyden tried for five years to bring this problem to light... and have an open public debate on what an unclassified law is and how is it being interpreted....and a misuse of classification because it conveniently hides an embarrassing issue or hides an illegal interpretation of the law...
http://www.truth-out.org/video/item/18158-senate-insider-speaks-out-ex-wyden-staffer-on-secret-laws-domestic-spying-and-obamas-nsa-reforms