HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » FISA & EPCA the facts & n...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:17 PM

FISA & EPCA the facts & nothing more

I have been watching the madness unfold regarding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the allegations that US Citizens are being illegally monitored & investigated by these Intel agencies yet so far nothing has been provided to substantiate these allegations. Both FISA and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) both clearly outline what the legal parameters are as well as the procedures.

As to the allegations that the US Government is illegally data-mining our call logs. The Supreme Court has ruled in States v. Miller, 442 U.S. 735, 741-46 (1979), that customers do not have a 4th Amendment right to protected expectation to privacy and that no warrant was required for these documents if it was merely identified the number the call originated from and the destination number. Furthermore the court held the customer had no justifiable expectation of privacy in information which he knew or should have known the telephone company might ordinarily capture for billing or service purposes. As such, claiming your constitutional rights have been violated because of this action alone is a moot point and was decided by SCOTUS 34 years ago.

Conducting surveillance on US Citizens: FISA subsection 702(b) specifically outlines the intelligence gathering on everyone not just people outside the US. This section has several limitations on the acquisitions on these targets and are as follows: 1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; 2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular,
known person reasonably believed to be in the United States; 3) may not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; 4 ) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and 5) must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, the EPCA also protects everyone's emails, voice-mails, and another electronic communications, the gov can't obtain/maintain or read, without a real warrant, FISA only used for Foreign Intel. I know this is a hot topic but there really are laws in place that prevent any violations of our 4th Amendment rights when it comes to intelligence gathering. These laws govern all entities that gather Intel for us & it is all prosecutable & people do get prosecuted for misusing the access they are given.

Re-authorization of FISA http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R42725.pdf
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/98-326_20121009.pdf

56 replies, 2570 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply FISA & EPCA the facts & nothing more (Original post)
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 OP
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #3
Monkie Jun 2013 #5
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #18
Monkie Jun 2013 #21
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #22
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #30
Jarla Jun 2013 #31
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #32
Jarla Jun 2013 #35
Monkie Jun 2013 #36
Monkie Jun 2013 #37
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #41
Monkie Jun 2013 #42
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #43
Monkie Jun 2013 #44
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #45
Monkie Jun 2013 #46
Monkie Jun 2013 #47
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #48
Monkie Jun 2013 #49
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #50
Monkie Jun 2013 #51
Monkie Jun 2013 #52
randome Jun 2013 #4
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #7
randome Jun 2013 #8
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #9
randome Jun 2013 #10
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #13
randome Jun 2013 #14
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #15
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #17
Monkie Jun 2013 #20
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #23
Monkie Jun 2013 #24
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #25
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #26
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #28
Monkie Jun 2013 #38
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #40
datasuspect Jun 2013 #29
Fumesucker Jun 2013 #2
MNBrewer Jun 2013 #6
randome Jun 2013 #11
MNBrewer Jun 2013 #12
okaawhatever Jun 2013 #16
FSogol Jun 2013 #19
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #33
MineralMan Jun 2013 #27
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #34
HappyMe Jun 2013 #39
Monkie Jun 2013 #53
randome Jun 2013 #54
Monkie Jun 2013 #55
railsback Jun 2013 #56

Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:25 PM

1. Thank Gawd they never break laws

Oh wait, they do. And they do it in secret. Which means they don't tell you.

What you seem to miss is that the only way they get caught is if they take it to court. So they don't take it to court.

Now, if you'd be so kind as to state the case wherein, as you wrote: "...people do get prosecuted for misusing the access they are given."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:35 PM

3. I am talking about experience

in prosecuting MI Soldiers for misusing the access they have been given. Not high level cases or anything but that doesn't make it any less true. You do realize that even in the civilian world with the type of job I have with just someone's name I could access all types of information on to include criminal record, driving record, everywhere you have ever worked, etc through Westlaw or Nexus Lexis? The issue becomes while I know I have that access for my job & whatever level of information I am trying to obtain, I have to click a disclosure stating I am using it for a legal purpose.

The entire basis of these silly ass arguments has been that it was legal through the FISA courts or it's a violation of someones 4th Amendment rights that is not true. I have provided you plenty of facts and case law to back it up, you want to keep up the mantra so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:40 PM

5. experience is welcome, could you comment on greenwalds detailed take on FISA?

 

he is a lawyer, i am not, this is his latest piece which is quite specific.

Greenwald: Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023043583

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:19 AM

18. When I get home tonight

That is what sparked me finally writing this, I can't access it at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:27 AM

21. ok sorry, i got a little angry at you

 

when you addressed someone without any expertise while ignoring the real questions made by someone with expertise i accused you of attacking straw men, if you want i will delete that post, or leave it so i can look like a idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:49 AM

22. I didn't realize you were attacking me,

I know people have been skeptical because I have only been on here a short time, but I didn't know trying to add facts into a relevant discussion was a bad thing. We're good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:37 PM

30. Response to Greenwalds Piece

I am going to start at the beginning of the article & work my way down:

Greenwald states in the 3d paragraph below the Title No Individual Warrants Are Required Under 2008 FISA, "Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic. But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance."

As I stated in my initial post, this is just a flat out distortion of what FISA states particularly subsection 702(b) which states specifically that an acquisition may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States; may not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A few key points of the excerpt of 702(b) above is this is the same thing I have been saying, there are very strict laws covering the Intel gathering techniques used when they are involving US persons whether they are here or abroad. All of that is covered above. Now as I stated in the original post it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1979 that obtaining just an individuals phone numbers is not considered a violation of the 4th Am due to no reasonable expectation of privacy. So gathering the phone records goes out the window. It may be crappy but until it is challenged with some relevancy it's the law, no different that many other laws we have on the books. The FISC as well as the AG/DNI are only authorized to to approve the court orders or target individuals listed above and specifically cannot target point to point individuals within the US.

Listed in the 2d paragraph following Warrantless interceptions of American's communications, Greenwald states that "communications of or concerning United States persons that may be related to the authorized purpose of the acquisition may be forwarded to analytic personnel responsible for producing intelligence information from the collected data." It also states that "such communications or information" - those from US citizens - "may be retained and disseminated" if it meets the guidelines set forth in the NSA's procedures.

This is alluding to the documents that were approved for procurement as noted in subection 702(b), so essentially what is occurring is once approval has been granted to obtain the documents have been obtained they are forwarded to an analyst for interpretation and/or dissemination. FISA spells out exactly how long these documents can be maintained & the warrant is only good for 1 year, it can not be a blanket warrant.

Finally, the entire tale going around about the FISC being one judge that just rubber stamps these orders is also inaccurate. Under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(a), what actually occurs is the Chief Justice of the US appoints 11 judges, from no fewer than 7 of the US districts, 3 of whom must live within 30 miles of DC. When a warrant comes up it goes to one of the 11 judges for review, if the request is denied, then the judge must write a memo stating why it was denied to include in the file. The denial cannot then be forwarded to another judge. However, there is a FISC Of Review, that apparently has gone completely unnoticed in all of this maylay. There are also 3 judges appointed to that court. If the Gov petitions the COR then the denial is sent to them under seal, if they still deny it then it can go to the SCOTUS.

This article has a whole lot of speculation & hearsay without much facts, yes, I stopped halfway through because I could make this a very long write up & I think I saw something yesterday saying there were rules against that.

If you genuinely have a question or want to have a real discussion about this I will be happy to do so.

I am not a cheer squad for anyone & this program needs a whole lot of work but, there is a lot more information out there than everyone is making it seem.

The link below is actually to a lot of information regarding FISA and the courts.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:51 PM

31. I think that emails older than 180 days only require a subpoena

According to the Stored Communications Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarla (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:56 PM

32. Nope, certain things apply to US Persons & Non US Persons everyone within the US is considered a US

US Person, you should read the FAA & ECPA. They outline exactly what is required and for whom. That is why I posted what I did above. I was tied of all the misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:37 PM

35. From the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide

Link: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/email-content-foia/FBI%20docs/June%202012%20FBI%20DIOG.pdf

18.7.1.3.4.4 (U) COMPELLED DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF STORED WIRE OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

(U) Contents in "electronic storage" (e.g., unopened e-maillvoice mail) require a search
warrant. See 18 U.S.c. § 2703(a). A distinction is made between the contents of
communications that are in electronic storage (e.g., unopened e-mail) for less than 180
days and those in "electronic storage" for longer than 180 days, or those that are no
longer in "electronic storage" (e.g., opened e-mail). In enacting the ECPA, Congress
concluded that customers may not retain a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in
information sent to network providers.
However, the contents of an e-mail message that
is unopened should Nonetheless be protected by Fourth Amendment standards, similar to
the contents of a regularly mailed letter. On the other hand, if the contents of an unopened
message are kept beyond six months or stored on behalf of the customer after the e-mail
has been received or opened
, it should he treated the same as a business record in the
hands of a third party, such as an accountant or attorney. In that case, the government
may subpoena the records from the third party
without running afoul of either the Fourth
or Fifth Amendment. If a search warrant is used, it may be served on the provider without
notice to the customer or subscriber

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 06:41 AM

36. as the other poster has shown, claiming something is misinformation does not make it so

 

you can claim something in a authoritative way all day if you wish, but in this case you are very wrong, as has been shown, it would be gracious of you to admit this (without deleting your post), and refrain from making that claim, and other claims such as this with such strident authority in future. you may have some expertise but it is now obvious what you say is not the last word on the matter, nor "the whole truth" in matters such as these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:23 AM

37. so the reality is you are appealing to authority and preaching blind trust

 

im sorry, but i am a little disappointed, you claim expertise in legal matters, claim to represent just the facts, then accuse greenwald of "flat out distorting" while ignoring something, a basic fact, that anyone with even the most basic "armchair" knowledge of the legal profession would know.
if there is ambiguity in the language used to define law, then lawyers will use this ambiguity to claim the right to bend the law, or break the spirit of the law, and judges will allow this, if this whole process then takes place in secret, and when one of the basic checks and balances a democracy has, the oversight of the public, or a free press, is missing, then there is a real danger for abuse.
now i am not a lawyer, but i work with language in other ways, PR and advertising is where my experience of this ambiguity comes from.
and when the law contains phrases such as " not intentionally" and "reasonably believed", well, this is so ambiguous i could not only drive a bus through it, i could turn the bus around in it.
you also make claims about the retention of documents, where you yourself are being disingenuous, to put it politely, because this is the quote from the official interviewed by the guardian:

A senior US intelligence official told the Guardian: "Under section 702,
~edited out the fluff to get to the relevant part~
These procedures are approved on an annual basis by the Fisa court.


i think this proves my point about lawyers and busses, the quote from the official is, these procedures are approved on a annual basis, that is something completely different from "a warrant is only good for a year", it has already been shown/proven that other blanket fisa warrants that had a time limit of 3 months have been renewed every 3 months for the past 7 years, so who is the person that is flat out distorting, you, or greenwald and the other lawyers he quotes?

now maybe you are right, and greenwald is wrong, in saying the fisa court is not a rubberstamp, but you dont provide the actual data we have seen, which is how many times the government has ben reigned back by this court, which i think is quite a important metric when judging if the court is "rubber stamping" or not. of course you could argue that this means the law is being applied correctly, but i dont think you really want me to dig up examples where this is not the case, we only have so much time in a day, or not?

lastly, you wave away the rest of the article as hearsay and speculation, but lets look for a minute who it is that is doing the "speculating", on the one hand we have you, a anonymous expert, and on the other we have greenwald, a lawyer, jameel jaffer, deputy legal director at the ACLU, and jack balkin, professor of constitutional law at yale university, and i dont think anyone else has any doubts regarding who's appeal to authority is more convincing here.

i do welcome a discussion, and i think i have covered most of what you claim, but to me your post does begin to look like cheerleading and a lot less authoritative and balanced than your original post on this subject implies.
i dont mind "giving" you the point that there is _some_ tiny amount of oversight of the program by the FISA court that greenwald does not acknowledge, but this is so minor. i am most disappointed that someone that claims legal expertise and balance would try to deny or ignore the obvious ambiguity in the wording of the law, something that i would think is a basic requirement to be a expert, recognising dangerous ambiguity.
and when we couple this with the fact that someone else already showed that you were wrong about the law as it pertains to email, i think it is fair to say that your claims of authority and fact have been debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:52 AM

41. I didn't preach to blind trust, nor is anything I said opinon based

Everything is all pulled directly from FISA and the USC which governs the FISC & FISCOR, Jack Balkin is making speculation as to what they think may be occuring within the program while ignoring what the letter of the law states. As you will see in Greenwalds article where he makes the statements regarding the law, then it drifts over into italaics and they say well this really could happen this way.

You can take it in whatever way shape or form you wish, the bottom line is, the FISC, FISCOR, & FISA are laid out clear as day for anyone to read. The fact that people are allowing Greenwald to twist it up into whatever twisted way he sees fit is nuts.

I do not write for journalistic flair, the law is the law and you are way off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:04 AM

42. im sorry, you did exactly that, blind trust, and you now offer no argument

 

you ignore my arguments, you offer nothing other than "the law is the law".

is it not true that where the wording of the law is open to even the slightest ambiguity that lawyers will argue over those details and make it say anything they want.
this is not meant as a insult, more a fact, and some grudging admiration on my part.
if you want i really will dig up examples from court cases, and supreme court decisions that show exactly these arguments, and the supreme court allowing the law to be used in the opposite way most people read or thought it was intended, precisely due to these ambiguities.

you do not address at all my argument in relation to the 3 month warrants that were repeatedly renewed for 7 years.
you also do not address the fact that you were wrong about the law when it came to privacy and emails stored for longer than 3 months.

so i repeat, you only preach blind trust, you appeal to authority, and your writing is exactly that, a lot of flair but very little actual argument beyond "the law is the law". this may work on fools and children, but this adult requires a little more from you before accepting you do infact speak with some authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:44 AM

43. Whatever

You asked me what I thought of Greenwalds article. I argued some of the the key points in the article & provided the case law to back up my facts. If you want to argue facts either put up or shut up, as of right now all you are doing it blowing hot air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:17 PM

44. i see you have nothing factual to say about my arguments

 

as i thought all along.
i did put up, i pointed out the flaws in your argument,
your assertion with regards to the "180 days email" was wrong and you did not have the grace to retract that.
you offer nothing to counter my objection to your assertion of "a warrant is only good for a year"
and you offer nothing to counter my claim that one can drive a bus through the ambiguous wording of the act, and that there is also no way we can check if this is exactly what government lawyers are doing, in secret.

i was gracious enough to concede that you might have a point that oversight by the judges themselves is better than portrayed by greenwald, but still in no way what any normal human being would call open justice or proper oversight.

i would say that is, game, set, and match, as they say in tennis.

you said you welcomed a discussion, let me remind you then, a discussion does not mean bowing down to your assertions without question, i questioned your assertions in 3 key areas, and you folded, end of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:31 PM

45. I said back it up

, I did not make the 180 email claim someone else did. A warrant it only good for a year, "Like its predecessor in the PAA, § 702 permits the AG and the DNI to jointly authorize targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, but is limited to targeting non-U.S. persons. Once authorized, such acquisitions may last for periods of up to one year." (you can find this on page 8 in the link below)


I provided my proof, you are making counter claims, provide proof.

I will wait.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R42725.pdf

I do this for a damn living, you are making a damn fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #45)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:52 PM

46. i did not realise i had to back up commonly accepted facts but sure.

 

my 3 points backed up with facts then.

you said earlier in this discussion that jarla was wrong, jarla then posted this link, and you went quiet

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/email-content-foia/FBI%20docs/June%202012%20FBI%20DIOG.pdf

18.7.1.3.4.4 (U) COMPELLED DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF STORED WIRE OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

(U) Contents in "electronic storage" (e.g., unopened e-maillvoice mail) require a search
warrant. See 18 U.S.c. § 2703(a). A distinction is made between the contents of
communications that are in electronic storage (e.g., unopened e-mail) for less than 180
days and those in "electronic storage" for longer than 180 days, or those that are no
longer in "electronic storage" (e.g., opened e-mail). In enacting the ECPA, Congress
concluded that customers may not retain a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in
information sent to network providers. However, the contents of an e-mail message that
is unopened should Nonetheless be protected by Fourth Amendment standards, similar to
the contents of a regularly mailed letter. On the other hand, if the contents of an unopened
message are kept beyond six months or stored on behalf of the customer after the e-mail
has been received or opened, it should he treated the same as a business record in the
hands of a third party, such as an accountant or attorney. In that case, the government
may subpoena the records from the third party without running afoul of either the Fourth
or Fifth Amendment. If a search warrant is used, it may be served on the provider without
notice to the customer or subscriber


you said "a warrant is only good for a year" without acknowledging that warrants can be renewed, it is difficult to prove this considering that we have no actual data from fisa courts, which you may think makes you pretty clever with that assertion.
but i countered by saying that in other examples relating to the NSA it has been shown that what was initially portrayed as a 3 month warrant and nothing sinister, was actually a 3 month recurring warrant, rubberstamped if you wish, for years.
since i cant actually quote from case law i will have to make do with the senators engaged in the oversight of these programs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2960140
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/06/06/senators-verizon-warrant-a-renewal-from-2006/

“As far as I know this is the exact three month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the court under the business records section of the Patriot Act,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the intelligence committee, told reporters in the Senate gallery.


so i think that proves my claim that it is disingenuous to suggest a warrant is only good for a year as it leaves out part of the picture.

that leaves just my point that the wording of the FISA act is ambiguous, on this you challenge all the lawyers in original article without offering anything but the law is the law, and you want me to prove something that nobody else is arguing, on this one i expect YOU to come up with some legal opinion other than your own that the wording is not ambiguous, because everyone i have seen comment on this, lawyer or not has said the wording is ambiguous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #45)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:12 PM

47. a good example of ambiguity in the law, is the word Fair use

 

this i believe is a deliberate case of ambiguity?
this is the best example i can give of the problems with ambiguous language, as it is a subject i am more familiar with.
i found a good example of this discussion in the university of Pennsylvania law review, the word ambiguous is used almost continuously, and the problems arising from this are discussed at length

http://www.bartonbeebe.com/documents/Beebe%20-%20Empirical%20Study%20of%20FU%20Opinions.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:04 PM

48. You are attempting to try & muddy

the waters & mischaracterize FISA & the law as it is applied through FISC, the NSA & all other Intel agencies have to follow these laws when they apply for a warrant. The same paragraph that I mentioned above is the same one that lists the elements that must be applied when petitioning for the search. When you start going off the rails into the weeds about into ambiguity you are forgetting that they still have to meet those requirements.

There is no maybe when meeting those requirements.

Furthermore, the ECPA has many more requirements when it comes to US persons both here & abroad. That is why it keeps getting brought up that FISA doesn't have a whole lot to do with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:46 PM

49. you still address none of my points, the fact is there is no case law for FISA

 

it is very clever of you to keep pointing to the letter of the law, i am not trying to muddy the water, i make clear points, you ignore them except for pointing at the law, and appealing to authority.
but the fact is, there IS no case law for me to refer to, there is NOTHING because it is secret, i can only refer to law indirectly to prove my point, but this fact also proves my point.

it is impossible to know how the law is being interpreted if the interpretation in itself is secret, and the rulings are secret.

i have done my best to address your concerns about my points, and you ignore everything i bring up because it does not fit your narrative.
you keep referring to this one paragraph that only says one thing as "safeguard":
may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed

you cant pretend to be a lawyer and at the same time tell me that is not full of holes.
you cant pretend that this can not be interpreted in many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #49)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:01 PM

50. Bullshit

I have answered your questions & pointed to the law, see that's how this works. All of these programs work & are governed are by these laws, the exact ones I have shown you. I have also shown you the laws that protect us as US persons & the laws that govern the FISC & the FISCOR. There is no interpretation of a law other than that, which is why the bs coming from Greenwald & Snowden is a joke.

Somehow you are under the impression that we can just look at a law & just twist it to however we see fit, the justice system doesn't work that way & never had.

The only things being kept secret is the court orders themselves & the Intel. Like I said before I have provided everything to back up those points. You let me know when Snowden or Greenwald has something else to back up theirs. Until then, I'm not going to keep saying the same damn thing over & over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:28 PM

51. i put up, miss anonymous expert, and all you did was cry and cry "the law the law"

 

i showed you exactly how the law can be interpreted to be what a judge rules it to be, a whole review of fair use ambiguity.
and still you are not being completely truthful in what you say:

The only things being kept secret is the court orders themselves & the Intel


you forgot how those that petition that chose to interpret the law, that is also secret.

you seem only to be used to countering the arguments of people that are impressed by your claims of authority, and sycophants who agree with you without even looking at the real substance of what you say.
you claim expertise, but my whole professional life is dealing with people who twist words to suit their purpose, and leave out what they wish you to ignore. im not fooled by you for one second.

you show your true colours when as anonymous expert you dare to call the constitutional lawyer greenwald, the yale professor of constitutional law Jack M. Balkin (educated at harvard), and the ACLU's deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer (educated at harvard) jokes. and by implication their opinions on the law a joke, that is quite the claim for a anonymous expert to make.
let me remind you who jameel jaffer is, and what his democratic credentials are:

Jameel Jaffer is a human rights and civil liberties attorney who is deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He is particularly notable for the role he played in litigating Freedom of Information Act requests that led to the U.S. government's release of over one hundred thousand pages of documents related to the torture of prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Among the documents released through that litigation were interrogation directives signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, emails written by FBI agents who witnessed the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, legal memos in which the Office of Legal Counsel stated that U.S. law did not prohibit the President from authorizing torture, and autopsy reports relating to prisoners who were killed in U.S. custody.


so who are we to believe in this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #51)


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:37 PM

4. Um, does anyone break a law and then tell you about it?

Face it, there is nothing on Earth that would satisfy you, right?

Except for taking the word of a guy in Hong Kong. Apparently that's okay.



You should never stop having childhood dreams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:45 PM

7. Is there a real question from you?

Last time we discussed this subject you went on about your ass, kangaroos and laser beams. I can find the post if you have forgotten already.

So, sit quietly for a few minutes, compose yourself, and see if you can think of a real question this time.

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:47 PM

8. You said "Thank Gawd they never break laws".

So my question remains. Obviously you believe the NSA breaks laws and doesn't inform anyone about it. So what would satisfy you that they were doing their jobs correctly?

Anything?



You should never stop having childhood dreams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:54 PM

9. Easy

You should know this one. Surprised you even have to ask.

Don't make a big fucking secret about it.

Not even our congress can get the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:59 PM

10. So no government secrets ever?

Obama put in a hell of a lot more constraints and openness than existed before he took office. If that's not enough, I don't think anyone cares to argue that. I don't see anyone saying the NSA needs more secrecy.

But how can an organization keep secrets and still be open? It's always a balancing act and it's probably never going to be perfect.



You should never stop having childhood dreams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:07 PM

13. OK, I answered your question. Here's one for you.

No dancing around, just a simple yes or no.

Are you in favor of a small group of people, and the assorted private contractors, having terabytes of information on US Citizens, and our congresspeople can't even find out about that assemblage of info, because it is a secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:13 PM

14. Private contractors, no.

Do I really care what kind of files the NSA or the FBI or the CIA maintain on others? Not really. We do have a lot of abhorrent people in this country that are citizens. You know, murderers, pedophiles, white supremacists, and even terrorists. Should we not maintain files on them?

If you mean files on every single citizen in the U.S. just because, of course I'm not in favor of that. And I don't see that it's happening.

I don't consider myself to be an NSA booster of any kind, I just don't see why Snowden's word on anything is to be believed.

You have Obama's word and now you have giftedgirl77's personal experience. That, to me, outweighs the word of a guy in Hong Kong.



You should never stop having childhood dreams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:24 PM

15. Secrecy

Neither you or giftedgirl77 are privy to the secrecy. And here I quote her:

"""..how do you expect someone to discuss not just a classified program but a Top Secret program" ""

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035445#post112

So, how can you claim to have a clue about what is going on when you are not included in a top-secret program? How can giftedgirl77?

So just can it, and talk about the facts as we know them. They can tap every phone anywhere anytime. That's why they get paid billions of dollars. And it is all in secrecy.

You know, you should probably just go back to worrying about what flies out of your butt. At least you have knowledge of THAT.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033744#post31

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:16 AM

17. So facts just kick your ass don't they?

You just can't grasp the fact that discussing a classified program in an open forum is a blatent violation of operational security. I don't need to know the inner workings of that particular program to know the laws that govern all Intel when it involves US Citizens phone records & their electronic communications. You have been screaming nothing but nonsense since this story broke with no facts to back it up and everytime I tell you what the law is you scream bullshit. Well here is the law plain as day for you to see and you still claim bullshit, what a suprise.

You say talk about the facts as we know them, what facts? That a low-level empployee is saying that they are doing something else with nothing to back it up? Shocker, those are not facts. I have provided you the SCOTUS ruling that says your phone call logs are not protected under the 4th Amendment. I have also provided you the info that shows all of your EMAILS & phone calls are protected under the EPCA & can not be accessed without a full warrant through the courts witch is not FISA. I have also shown you that tapping and storing US Citizens phone calls & emails is illegal under both FISA & the EPCA so at this point you are the one left with no damn facts and needs to can it.

You have nothing left to do but jump up and down and scream no over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:25 AM

20. so why wont you answer the real question, the lawyers questions?straw men and "facts"

 

sure its easy to rant at a ordinary citizen who is asking questions but does not have all the facts needed to make a informed decision on who is right, but i notice you carefully ignore the real questions asked by a constitutional lawyer, if you cant rebut or refuse to rebut the reasoned arguments of a constitutional lawyer but chose to attack a citizen asking questions then you are doing nothing more or less than choosing straw men to burn down.

i think that makes it plain that your so called facts are meaningless drivel wrapped in the stained robe of the appeal to authority.
i first asked you politely to address the concerns that were raised by the constitutional lawyer, someone who does have relevant knowledge, and now i am going to ask you a little less politely.

put up or shut up, answer the real questions or it is plain that your so called facts have all the substance of a vacuum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #20)


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:00 PM

24. again, if i had seen you had also responded to me after attacking the other person

 

i would not have responded in the way i did.
i thought your post was also "kind of a dick move" when there was a substantiative critique that was more worthy of a serious rebuttal by someone who takes the position you do, hence the "straw man" statement.
most of the people who have defended the state in this discussion have done so without actually addressing the issues with any authority, it may sounds strange that i say this, but i really really do welcome that.

so now i look quite foolish, which is not a bad thing i guess, it is always good to screw up sometimes, it keeps the old ego in check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:05 PM

25. It's ok, we can feel foolish together

because I was referring to the other response & was trying to figure out if that was your mean tone I had no idea what civil was. No the other fella has a history of attacking everything I say no matter what. I will remove my dick move statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:21 PM

26. Awww

All I did was quote you. You claimed that no one who is not privy to the secrets can discuss, with authority, the secrets.

Yet you go on lecturing about the secrets as if you were an authority. All I did was put you in your place. If you do not like your place, that is your problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:13 PM

28. Nooo

I said they can't aspeak about the program in an open forum and every time I try to explain something you start screamnig put up or shut up. Well now I have. I have given you the answers on the authority to keep the call logs without a warrant and what keeps the entire government from not only listening to our phone calls, our voicemails, emails, and all other digital data. This is exactly the same thing I have been telling you the entire time.

Now when you have some evidence other than hearsay, you let me know.

Until then, I say goodday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:31 AM

38. it is funny that someone that approves this data retention deletes their post

 

when questioned about the content of that post, while the person that is against this spying by the NSA leaves their mistakes to be judged by their "peers". so now it is just me looking foolish, with your foolishness erased from history, do you see the irony in that?

that said i had no idea this person was following you around and disagreeing with you in other threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:41 AM

40. Seriously, It was because I had called you a dick

There was nothing more to the post than that. You have serious issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:17 PM

29. "you went on about your ass, kangaroos and laser beams."

 

that is, by far, the funniest thing i have ever read on DU.

i might use that phrase as my sigline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:34 PM

2. People don't get prosecuted for fucking torture

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, go sell stupid somewhere else we're all stocked up here.

I can easily go back to Poppy Bush preemptively pardoning Cap the Knife Weinberger to keep his journal from coming into evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:40 PM

6. Yeah, where were all of you complainers back in 1979? I didn't see you make a PEEP back then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:00 PM

11. Where were they in 2012? 2011? At what point did this drop off the radar?

Because I don't recall this being much of a subject for the past couple of years at least.



You should never stop having childhood dreams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:01 PM

12. I know, so it' can't POSSIBLY be an issue NOW!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:36 AM

16. Thanks giftedgirl. We need more info and less hype around here. From the posts i've read you

make an excellent contribution to that. Shortly all the trolls will go back into hiding and rational discourse will return. I hope you stick around for it. Thank you for your information and effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:23 AM

19. Completely agree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:58 PM

33. Thank you

I appreciate it. I keep getting reassurance from like minded folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:13 PM

27. Actual information on DU? How quaint.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:03 PM

34. The Gov Facts, often turn out to be LIES

 

FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:43 AM

39. Thanks for posting some facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:33 PM

53. i call debunked, anonymous "expert" vs the top ACLU lawyer, and 2 constitutional lawyers

 

you can check my exchange with this anonymous "expert" where they offer nothing of substance beyond saying "the law".
something i can now point to when they next attempt to fool people by appealing to authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #53)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:41 PM

54. Debate is fine but you don't seem willing to engage in it.

Then you post this self-important item to crow about your 'victory'. My unsolicited advice is that you show more consideration to the rest of us.



You should never stop having childhood dreams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #54)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 04:09 PM

55. i'm sorry, i really tried debate, but there was none to be had, sadly

 

i tried hard, i asked more than once, i gave examples, my hands are tied due to there being no case law for me to cite, and all the anonymous expert could do was point to one passage of the law and say, i am a expert and it is ok.
that is not debate, and calling the lawyer from the aclu and greenwald and the yale constitutional lawyers "a joke" with no counterargument is not debate either.
it is a shame really, i enjoy debate with highly intelligent people, because they challenge me, so i feel really let down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 04:45 PM

56. Wasted time

 

People have already doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on the evil fascist government spying on everyone everyday meme because that's the angle Greenwald sent everyone on.. and they dutifully followed.. while completely ignoring the real problem: That a dumb-ass server administrator like Snowden can dig through all your shit, lift what he wants, and then flee the country with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread