ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law

[ProSense]

ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law



http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ad-president-lied-american-people-and-broke-law

NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-americans-illegal

[FirstLight]

1. how old is this ad?

seems to me that Obama's pic should be on there too...He has failed to follow through with several pledges to 'protect our rights'...all the while saying "we must keep our homeland safe"

so, ya.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Obama Admin obtained a FISA warrant

It was entirely legal.

[cstanleytech]

13. I know that but try explaining that to others here as some of them have very short

memories and seem to have forgotten that the majority of problems with Bush as far as wiretapping that most of us agreed on was that he wasnt even using the FISA courts.

[Savannahmann]

24. FISA stands for Freign Intelligence

Getting all the phone and meta data for every domestic cell phone is hardly foreign intelligence. Additionally it plainly violates the fourth amendment.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. So the FISA court in this case had no jurisdiction in your opinion?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Ummmm.....

[Savannahmann]

42. The FISA court is extra judicial

And by that I mean it does not apply the same constitutional standards that every other court applies. It was set up to operate on a very narrow quasi legal format, issuing warrants on suspected spies. When we dumped the PATRIOT ACT into FISA we put all our privacy into that category. Under the fourth amendment, they must have probable cause that a crime is committed, and the evidence they are searching for must be listed. Give us everything is not a list of evidence.

Read the fourth amendment. Think about it. The warrants are invalid and present an additional unconstitutional (ruled that way) prohibition. They prevent you from challenging them in court and contacting your lawyer. Verizon's challenge got that part thrown out as unconstitutional. But anyone who has read the fifth amendment already knew that you have a right to council. I hope Verizon challenges the warrant on appeal. I Can't imagine how it can stand up in court.

[stevenleser]

49. You are not correct. I discuss the relevant caselaw and history during my show tonight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022972636

[ProSense]

3. Why

"how old is this ad? seems to me that Obama's pic should be on there too..."

...because you're disappointed? What law did Obama break?

[FirstLight]

7. sorry

I didn't know this was all about the "legality" of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, Datamining of regular citizens, etc...I thought that President Obama was just as wrong for continuing these actions as Bush for implementing them... I forgot we aren't allowed to say anything derogatory against our beloved POTUS here.

[Life Long Dem]

9. You could say all you want about Obama

Just don't lie saying he broke the law.

[Dragonfli]

20. I thought the 4th amendment was the law

That so called warrant did not even remotely conform to the 4th. Blanket information gathering of millions of Americans without probable cause is never mentioned as an option in that amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

He broke the law by using an unconstitutional law as a fig leaf, so it is no lie.

I think that if a law that ignores an amendment is to be legal one must first repeal the amendment like they did with the 21st.

[99th_Monkey]

34. +1000 n/t

[grahamhgreen]

35. +1.

[cheapdate]

36. The question turns over the word "unreasonable".

It becomes more complicated when it competes with a claim of national security.

I'm not making this shit up.

[Dragonfli]

37. Not you, but perhaps someone is "making shit up". The 4th is rather clear.

I realize there are many like John Yoo who make a living providing shady made up justifications to pretend law breaking is legal under a "unique" interpretation. I believe he pulled that the president can order a child's testacles crushed under the right circumstances out of his ass once - I am not making THIS shit up.

[cheapdate]

40. What I'm talking about isn't a shady, made-up, legal argument.

You and I may not agree with how the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted in the courts, but it is what it is.

The court ruled long ago (Smith v. Maryland, 1855) that when we voluntarily divulge personal information to any third party, we waive our privacy rights and lose all Fourth Amendment protection over that information.

In the 1970s, the court extended that logic to phone calls. The argument was that since we “share” the phone numbers we dial with the phone company – which needs that information to connect the call – we can’t claim any constitutional protection when the government asks for that data.

Congress compounded the problem in the 1980s by codifying a lesser standard of protection for metadata.

And so far, all of this has occurred without the additional complication of considering the question in light of a claim of national security.

[Dragonfli]

41. Sounds pretty shady to me

They need no warrants at all according to a twisted interpretation of Smith v Maryland to track all of our calls, to whom, their gps location at any time, my gps location, whom I may call when investigating a story, when and how long we talked. I imagine next they will twist it further and claim to have the right to know what I had for breakfast and what the consistency of my shit was.

It is a shady, obviously Yoo type justifications to ignore the 4th when convenient.

[uponit7771]

44. USSC already ruled meta data is NOT 4th amendment protected in 1979

[appal_jack]

47. Well said, Dragonfli:this is the crux of the issue, n/t.

[premium]

48. +1000. nt.

[stevenleser]

51. You are really off on your interpretation. I lay it all out tonight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022972636

[Dragonfli]

53. Many people have been telling me the 4th has become meaningless,

If the words in that Amendment are to be ignored on the basis that "the phone company must know your number to place a call, so everyone has a right to all your call history, billing, phone locations, everyone you talk to, ect." Then we are being repurposed from a Democracy to something else, and all it takes is a few John Yoo style lawyers and Scalia quality "judgements" to repeal our Amendments.

You say this like it's good news. Personally I doubt they are allowed to search everything about me, where I am at any given time, who I talk to and for how long without following the fourth, but that is just because I refuse to believe it is Fascism just yet, unlike those that gleefully pronounce it is.

[stevenleser]

54. I would respond, but the show airs tonight at 7pm. It's an 18 minute segment and I lay it all out

there, fact after fact, with history, legal opinions cited and who did what and when.

[Dragonfli]

56. I didn't mean to interrupt your free commercial

[stevenleser]

57. No worries, I'll re-engage after the show airs and see if you change your mind. nt

[Dragonfli]

58. I don't usually listen to radio personalities that wish to explain to me how the 4th is a quaint

little relic from the past and is therefore meaningless. I had lots on the air telling me how quaint and behind the times legally the Geneva conventions were, they just made me puke.

You will have a great many fans here however so I am just as irrelevant as those that drafted the fourth Amendment, just a relic. I hope you earn some good cash tonight! We all have to eat somehow.

[stevenleser]

59. I understand how listening to facts can get in the way of a good outrage vent.

I prefer the facts though. I'm sure you will understand.

I'll put you down in the "I fear facts" category.

[Dragonfli]

60. You can put me down in the "freckled redhead" category but it won't change my hair color

You can also claim the words below are meaningless and prove how bad law has prevailed to make them meaningless and yet they have meaning regardless of the fact our government has made progress in "legally" ignoring them.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[stevenleser]

63. Being afraid to listen to facts makes you afraid to listen to facts. nt

[Dragonfli]

65. I am not afraid to hear how the 4th is being "legally" ignored, I am just disgusted by the display

There are not a great many words used in the amendment, yet I imagine it will take you an hours worth of words to "prove" how they simply don't apply as written. You will no doubt list decisions and case law that uses even more words to slowly erode the rights given in the fourth, built upon by even shadier rulings based on the original shady interpretations all so the government can claim to be above the law and have it be "legal".

By the end, everything Done by the Fascists was legal according to their interpretations of law, it did not start that way, it took fascist lawyers, judges, and radio personalities to transform the law. I don't doubt they have "legalized" the illegal, I just don't want to glorify such a dishonest and disgusting practice, nor do I wish to cheer on such practices used to take away our rights as if I am learning something from an enlightened scholar that is really just helping as an arm of the propaganda portion of the cheer on the growing fascism brigade.

You can earn your silver without me listening.
It has nothing to do with fear, I just find the whole display disgusting.

[treestar]

64. Nobody could act as President at all

If they had to worry about the court's ruling on a law was going to agree with theirs.

This just shows the unreasonableness of the position. Laws are unconstitutional or not on my personal say-so, can't wait for the courts to decide. The POTUS should use those laws as I see fit. Even though I know nothing but the words of the 4th Amendment and none of the case law on it.

This congress is going to repeal any parts of the Patriot Act because they are unconstitutional. What about the Congress that passed it? Nearly unanimously?

It has to be a hard life to have such expectations.

[Dragonfli]

66. Have you read the fourth? It states clearly what is constitutional.

I say we simply follow the constitution. You are projecting way too much, the language is quite simple, what don't you understand here?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[woo me with science]

69. [phone]

[alp227]

32. Dec. 2005. n/t

[Marr]

46. He made the formerly illegal behavior legal, see.

With an illegal law. So it's Ok.

[freshwest]

4. You sneaky thing... From the ACLU on 06/07/2013:

DOJ Tells Court It's Reconsidering Secrecy Surrounding Patriot Act's Spying Powers

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/doj-tells-court-its-reconsidering-secrecy-surrounding-patriot-acts-spying

[dkf]

6. Now that they are caught. Just like a cheating lying good for nothing.

Argh.

[woo me with science]

8. Expect offers of minor, cosmetic changes

in order to avoid the full-scale investigation and disclosure that is desperately needed to reveal the true progression of the police state in this country.

We are at the tip of a very ugly iceberg, and there is a lot of maneuvering going on now to attempt to mollify and reduce scrutiny.

[sheshe2]

23. Thank you, freshwest.

In light of the DNI's decision to declassify certain previously classified information, the Government requires time to consider what effect, if any, the DNI's decision has on the classification of information in some of the withheld documents still at issue in this case.

We take this as an encouraging sign that the government is considering handing over at least some of the information it has thus far declined to disclose – most importantly, Justice Department legal opinions and FISA Court rulings about Section 215.

[freshwest]

29. Yep, all legal. Want to change that? Change Congress. They put on a good show while cutting off

food aid to the poor, restricting women and voter rights, but they just never do get around to this, huh?

This is not a monarchy, and we don't have a strong executive office because the president does not make the laws.

What to make a difference in this situation - GOTV and make sure they repeal or change all these laws.

Or shut up about it being PBO by himself, or the AG. They're in charge of carrying out the law, they don't make 'em.

Where is that darling Rand Paul on this - oh, forget it, defenders of the Pauls don't get answered. I know what game he's playing. He doesn't give a damn about my rights or anyone I know. We're just not important to him.

Basic civics. You get what you elect. Don't vote to win, and you will get what you didn't vote for, too.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

~ Free Will by the group Rush.

[sheshe2]

31. The best way I can answer this, freshwest.

Is to compare it to those first responders in Boston, the paid professionals and citizens too.

We need to rush to the source of the explosion to aid, not away from it and abet those that would do us harm.

We stand and we fight this together. It is the only way we will win.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Bullshit, Obama is not compelled by these bogus laws, he is using them for cover for what he elects

to do.

What you are doing is making a "devil made me do it" excuse acting as a deflection and an escape hatch from accountability.

[byeya]

55. You are 100% correct. Nothing is compelling 0bama to act in this manner.

[treestar]

61. OK so you are OK with him not enforcing the immigration laws either:

http://www.immigrantjustice.org/blog/obama_prosecutorial_discretion_announcement

So you answer to all this is just leave the laws on the books for the Republicans to use while they are in power.

If any President does not use a law, then no one has standing to challenge it.

[TheKentuckian]

68. I have called for such, yes. Though the situations are not very comparable

With immigration we are talking about using discretion in enforcing actual laws with the surveillance dragnet the President isn't required to have one at all but rather is authorized by Congress (not the Constitution) to use methods at his discretion and the dragnet is one of those discretionary tools.

What you are comparing is apples and oranges. One where a law dictates actions that should be creatively enforced and the other where the law allows the President to take actions but does not enumerate them at all.

Yes, I call for the President to not take an action that Congress says is allowable (that cannot be Constitutional) while working to reign in the law moving forward. There is no practical way to challenge, the program is buried in secrecy and state security.

[dkf]

5. This is so sad... Makes me feel like crying.

[Electric Monk]

10. Nixon and Duhbya fist bump

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022970019

[Skip Intro]

11. I thought you were one of Obama's biggest and most aggressive supporters?

And you post that image?

[Cali_Democrat]

14. No...I think EM just doesn't like Republicans

Know what I mean?

[Skip Intro]

18. No, I don't know what you mean, Cali_Democrat.

[Dragonfli]

21. I do

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. Johnson needs to be in there, too.

[Cha]

16. Should have bin laden, and al queda assholes up there

there too.. with very sad fucking faces.

[olddots]

12. To learn more go to www.aclu.org just like it says

It's a great site

[Cha]

17. Excellent perspective ProSense.. of course

it's lost on those who have been cheering for the downfall of PBO.

[sheshe2]

25. Sad to say, but you are right, Ch!

It's a feeding frenzy right now.

The blood is in the water, the mindless follow.

[Cha]

28. But, lucky for us, she,

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 05:30 PM - Edit history (2)

it's fake Blood!

[sheshe2]

33. LOL~

To bad the don't know that!

Thanks Cha~

[treestar]

62. Too funny

Yes, they the cheerleaders. Negative ones. Always grabbing onto some pathetic exaggeration. This is just like the chained CPI thing.

[wandy]

19. Lied, maybe. Broke the law...................

Talk about having to pass a law to find out what's in it. Has anybody to this day actually read the patriot act.
Yes, I know. Somebody did.
And we did not listen to them.

[limpyhobbler]

22. You realize this is from 2005 and they were talking about Bush, not Obama?

[ProSense]

67. Yes. n/t

[sheshe2]

27. Well done, ProSense. nt

[a2liberal]

30. A ProSense post that I'm happy to rec

though probably not in the sense that you meant it

[JoeyT]

38. What should we do when an American President breaks the law?

We should desperately look forward, avoid prosecuting them at any cost, and cover up their misdeeds when necessary, even if it means applying pressure to other countries to drop talking about war crimes that they've gone on TV and admitted to.

Wait, was that the wrong answer? If so, someone might oughta remind the President.

[sabrina 1]

39. What do we do when a President breaks the law?? We CHANGE THE LAW!

That is what Congress did when Bush was caught getting the Telecoms to spy on the American people.

Congress rushed to amend the law, retroactively, making what he did illegally, LEGAL.

What the NSA is doing now WAS illegal until they made it legal to protect the criminals. I had hoped that Obama would not use such a despicable piece of legislation against the people, that was the best we could hope for then after the shock of his vote FOR IT.

Obama who had initially spoken out eloquently about those violations changed his mind and voted for that vile piece of legislation and spent the rest of his campaign trying to live it down, trying to explain it, making promises to 'fix' the abuses of the Bush years.

The only reason I continued to support him then was because I could not support someone who voted for the Iraq War. There was no one else. But that vote shocked me and millions of others back then. It was a fore-warning I realize now, of things to come.

[ProSense]

43. There is a law that allows illegal warrantless wiretapping? n/t

[sabrina 1]

45. There is a law, NOW, that allows them to act first, get the warrant later.

The original law worked find, it was altered to save Bush and his Telecom spies from the consequences of breaking that law. The current version of the law accomplished this feat, it retroactively made legal what was illegal. Unfortunately many Democrats helped save Bush and his spies when they voted for that version of the law, including this President.

[ProSense]

52. You forgot

"There is a law, NOW, that allows them to act first, get the warrant later."

...the debate. The fact is that FISA always allowed that. That was one of the strikes against the Bush administration's justification for illegal wiretapping.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by the nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act