Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

midnight

(26,624 posts)
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 08:18 PM Aug 2013

"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 we’ll 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 haven’t 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


5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"We don’t think the government’s statutory interpretations are even remotely correct. But now that (Original Post) midnight Aug 2013 OP
Well, Lets see what Senator Obama said about that in 2007: bvar22 Aug 2013 #1
The disappearance of two rational human beings, truedelphi Aug 2013 #2
truedelphi I have been thinking about this great response, because the turnabout is stunning, but midnight Aug 2013 #5
. blkmusclmachine Aug 2013 #3
Only reason we are having this NSA discussion because Snowden had to be a whistleblower because the midnight Aug 2013 #4

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
1. Well, Lets see what Senator Obama said about that in 2007:
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 09:39 PM
Aug 2013

*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)
2. The disappearance of two rational human beings,
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 09:45 PM
Aug 2013

Both of whom had widespread media coverage, almost makes me believe in Alien Abduction.

midnight

(26,624 posts)
5. truedelphi I have been thinking about this great response, because the turnabout is stunning, but
Wed Aug 14, 2013, 04:13 PM
Aug 2013

find myself speechless... So I will second your response....

midnight

(26,624 posts)
4. Only reason we are having this NSA discussion because Snowden had to be a whistleblower because the
Wed Aug 14, 2013, 10:35 AM
Aug 2013

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»"We don’t think the gover...