Obama Wants More Warrantless Surveillance of Americans

[villager]

Source: Daily Kos

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

This power would be conferred upon the same FBI whose agents have "cheated on tests on how to legally conduct domestic surveillance cases." Maybe this is just the administration's way of making sure these people won't have to cheat on future tests--not they won't have to worry about the pesky details of conducting domestic surveillance legally, since they won't have to worry about warrants.

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/29/888782/-Obama-administration-wants-more-warrantless-surveillance-of-Americans

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/29/888782/-Obama-administration-wants-more-warrantless-surveillance-of-Americans

---

good thing it's the Democrats demolishing the constitution! Why, if Republicans did it.. it'd be bad!

[FiveGoodMen]

1. It's not wrong when WE do it!!!!!

That's it!

I'm never voting for a republican again.

Obama was the last.




What?

You can't be serious!

[villager]

3. No -- our demolishing of the constitution is "pragmatic"

And only a pony-waltzing anarchist still clutches to the Bill of rights!

[Fearless]

9. +10000

[bobburgster]

36. Have you called the white house....

to complain? I did! Sure beats ranting and putting down others on here with "pragmatic" and all the other cute tongue in cheek terms used.

[ixion]

2. There should be NO Warrantless anything. Period.

Anything 'Warrantless' is in violation of the US Constitution.

[Deep13]

7. That's not what it says.

It says searches and seizures must be reasonable. Then it says warrants must be supported by probable cause under oath. It does NOT say a warrant is always necessary for a reasonable search. The Fed. courts have taken the view that police must get a warrant whenever possible, but that there are some well-defined exceptions.

[ixion]

10. Way to support the police state

get on with your bad self. :eyes:

[24601]

11. So by your standard when the police want to pull over a DWI or

are called to stop a rape and murder of a six-year old girl, an assault in progress, robbery, or a terrorist bomber boarding a plane, they can't stop the "alleged" perp without first finding a judge to sign a warrant? "Anything" covers an unlimited range of actions - even searching luggage and vehicles crossing the border - or the Coast Guard checking a ship that's leaking oil as it crosses into US waters - or the US Secret Service checking people (for weapons) crossing the perimeter to a presidential event. That's pure nutso - and it's absolutely not what the Constitution requires.

But what the hey - if you want to neuter the police, Secret Service, Customs, Coast Guard and the rest to endanger the President and the entire population and protect rapists from provocative six-year old girls, who are we to spoil your vision of a lawless nation?

Are you perhaps a defense attorney?

[pokerfan]

4. ...

:wtf: :puke:

[CheshireCat]

5. It's a good thing

we have a liberal in office!

I AM depressed.

[Journeyman]

6. I repeatedly said over the last 8 years that power is more easily grabbed than relinquished. . .

It was amusing, during the '08 campaign, to be castigated by various posters and told that Obama would never behave that way. "Why, he's a Constitutional scholar," was a favored response. And I never said it, but my unspoken retort was that only means he'll know precisely what laws he's breaking.

[democrat2thecore]

19. See post #18 - DIRECT QUOTE from Obama 12/07 -nt

[cstanleytech]

8. Pardon me if I am wrong but

isnt this a dupe thread pretty much?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4483378&mesg_id=4483378

[Bluebear]

12. You are wrong, as that thread is in another forum here, so not at all a dupe

[bring_em_home_bush]

30. thank you for your concern n/t

[QC]

13. Hopetastic! n/t

[gratuitous]

17. And Change-errific!

God DAMN it. Once the exceptions start getting introduced, there are suddenly all kinds of situations that crop up that fit the template, heretofore unanticipated. And if there isn't a reasonable suspicion when the feds start snooping through your electronic trail, there might very well be one when they get done.

Of course, if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, isn't that right Shirley Sherrod? Besides, we know that the Obama administration wouldn't make a mistake, or act precipitately before all the facts are in, or even act out of malice. Vulcans. Chess. Twelve levels. Ahhh, you wouldn't understand!

[QC]

20. It's OK is our guy does it. n/t

[LWolf]

14. Something else every week.

[Desertrose]

15. and its never a "good" something else either.

I feel just like your little sad blue donkey, LWolf.

[LWolf]

16. Many do, these days.

I've thought about you frequently, DR, wondering how an artist survives in this economy, and hoping your family is well.

:hug:

[Joe Fields]

27. This sort of behavior was easy to spot, if you had looked during

the primaries where most of his money was coming from. I never bought into the "hope and change" hype.

[LWolf]

31. Neither did I.

And you're right; if you looked beyond the eloquent, emotion-stirring, yet vague on details speeches, he was, and is, clearly a center-right politician. I stirred up a hornet's nest after his election and became the avowed "enemy" of some here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7979543

[femrap]

32. Me neither....

and some good people were banned from DU because they tried to speak the Truth. They should be allowed back in.

[LWolf]

33. Yes. nt

[inna]

35. excellent post, thanks for the link

:thumbsup:

[democrat2thecore]

18. Barack Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS - 12-20-07

Boston Globe Question 10:
Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like "waterboarding" clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

Some further points:

The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional. (Bold is my emphasis.)

The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

I believe the Administration's use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy - which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

Source is Boston Globe December 20, 2007. Here is "Barack Obama's Q&A":
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

[dflprincess]

21. What he said while a candidate doesn't count

- unless you're talking about Afghanistan. Then we're not allowed to question him because it appears to be the one thing he told the truth about.

However, bringing up anything else he said while a candidate merely indicates that you're mad because you didn't get a pony and/or you want Palin to be president.

:sarcasm:

[Poboy]

22. I wonder if they are so retarded as to believe that pretzel logic,

or they are intentionally making excuses knowing full well they do not make sense.
This is indefensible, yet they do try.

[Hugabear]

26. Is it really necessary to use that word?

You could make your point without having to use such slurs.

[Steely_Dan]

29. Pretzel Logic...

I like that.

[amborin]

23. K&R

[Karmadillo]

24. Only evildoers have anything to fear from this. Dems win! Go team!

nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

28. But Palin is scarier. Or something like that. Something about a pony too. n/t

[Individualist]

34. Changealicious!

[upi402]

37. Hoperiffic!