Obama Administration Had Restrictions on NSA Reversed in 2011...

[Indi Guy]

Source: Washington Post



The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Together the permission to search and to keep data longer expanded the NSA’s authority in significant ways without public debate or any specific authority from Congress. The administration’s assurances rely on legalistic definitions of the term “target” that can be at odds with ordinary English usage. The enlarged authority is part of a fundamental shift in the government’s approach to surveillance: collecting first, and protecting Americans’ privacy later...


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

[Javaman]

1. Yayyy!!!

[Brewinblue]

19. Yay indeed.

Facism rocks!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. Only someone with no clue about fascism would call this fascism

Either that, or a serious political drama-queen.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Brewinblue]

45. OK, self professed conservative.

Tell us how different it is from fascism when you have a government, beholden to nothing but the interests of the bankers and the MIC, using secret courts and secret laws to secretly spy, without any actual oversight, on its own citizenry.

Tell us how that is just as the Founding Fathers intended.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

53. Sure. Happy to do so.

Number of Deaths Caused by Fascism (in WW2 alone): 60+ million

Number of Deaths Caused by NSA Surveillance (both under Court Order and occasional errors they slapped down): 0

Even if I granted you your every dubious claim (even when it is directly contradicted by evidence), you still can't around the fact that wiretaps don't kill people. Doubly so when wiretaps are clearly subject to the NSA's extreme privacy rules, which are much akin to the IRS's.

Or do you want to outlaw the IRS as well, like the teabaggers you sound so very much like? They also Godwin in arguments as a substitute for actual facts. Indeed. All lunatics agree: Obama = Hitler! Fascism! All you need is a misspelled sign and a photoshop of a black guy with a short-cropped mustache.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[questionseverything]

56. whatever ism this is

it is not Constitutional and that is what the current admin has sworn to protect,not

" Doubly so when wiretaps are clearly subject to the NSA's extreme privacy rules,'

not privacy rules from a secret courts whim that can be changed in secret with no citizen oversight

[Indi Guy]

57. "NSA admits analysts purposefully violated citizens' privacy rights"...

National Security Agency officials deliberately overstepped their legal authority multiple times in the past decade, the agency acknowledged..."

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights

[MNBrewer]

2. drip, drip, drip

[newfie11]

3. Who did we elect??????

This is not the person I thought I voted for twice!

[FreakinDJ]

7. Best Con Man ever

certainly had me fooled

[RC]

8. It wasn't long after Obama took office, I began to have trouble processing what he was doing, or

rather, not doing.
Where was the reasonably Liberal, Constitutional scholar we elected? He went AWOL, replaced by a Republican clone.
I just could not wrap my head around someone, least of all this guy, who sounded so good right up to the {first}election. His actions after that, just flat out did not compute.
His defenders at all cost, came up with the umpteenth dimensional chess shit about then, to try to cover the obvious disconnect between reality and the BS we were being fed at the time.

[zipplewrath]

10. It took some time

When he picked Rahm, I thought he just wanted his own attack dog, he still held the lease. I kept waiting for the job for Dean to appear. I thought Rick Warren was just a rookie mistake. When he kept Gates, I thought he was looking to use Gates to make the changes necessary. When he shut single payer out, I thought it was a strategy to take the heat off of the public option. It was somewhere around the time that he bailed on the public option that I began to realize we were in trouble. In hind sight, the signs were all around, and in fact Hillary saw them to some extent. There are people here who saw them early. I voted for him twice. I voted for Clinton twice. But it's been a real case of "lesser of two evils", with the emphasis on lesser.

[HumansAndResources]

22. Next Time, I "Hope" We Pay Attention to Who the Advisers Are ... **During the Primary Campaign**

I tried this 'till I was blue in the face in 08, but all everyone heard were the pretty speeches. The "left" media funded by Billionaire's foundations and Oil Barons didn't talk about it - just me and the other "conspiracy theorists" who knew a thing or two about Zbig Brzezenski and Co.

Good people don't hang out at the American Baron War Criminals Clubhouse, the CFR, or travel with their founding members.

[zipplewrath]

24. Doncha wish

I sometime wish we got to vote on positions like "majority" leader or Speaker of the House. You sorta wish we got to vote on AG, and Chief of Staff. Yeah, I know why it wouldn't work. The authors of the Constitution actually tried to figure out how the AG could be elected but could never figure out how to actually make it work. But we elect a president and literally hundreds of important positions are suddenly within a single persons control, and we have no say at all.

[BuelahWitch]

60. We also heard "But he was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER!!"

again and again. I guess he'll be organizing communities in The Hamptons when he leaves office?

[avaistheone1]

37. My first alert came early when Obama gave the hat tip to approve retroactive immunity

to AT&T for spying on Americans.

[Indi Guy]

44. My first concern was when Obama flatly refused...

...to hold anyone in the Bush regime accountable for anything whatsoever.

[MisterP]

4. Nader did this! NAAADER! (he's the whipping boy only because Henry Wallace is dead)

[avaistheone1]

38. +10

LOL

[AverageJoe90]

5. Not really sure if I can believe this, TBH. eom

[Divernan]

9. Why on earth not? You need to realize who Obama really is.

Can't blame this action on anyone but him! If you can't face ("believe&quot hard political realities, then DU is not the place for you.

[Indi Guy]

13. Change you can't believe in? - I understand how you feel but...

...no president has really pulled the strings in DC since JFK; and look at the example that was made of him.

[AverageJoe90]

18. Maybe....but something smells really off.

All of the research I've done suggests that while we're not out of the woods, Obama's actually done quite a bit to ensure MORE protections for those not currently being investigated for possible crimes, not less. And given how Karl Rove reacted when Obama won his last election.....well, this seems like it could be just another covert attempt to smear the president. And certainly, Dubya himself NEVER would have requested that the government restrict it's surveillance(and if this IS true, whoever did wasn't likely to be acting on his behalf).....unless, perhaps, it was part of an elaborate plan to screw over the next Democrat who won the White House, or some other scheme; though frankly, the former is more likely.

[forestpath]

6. That figures. That's just what I would expect from Obama.

It doesn't seem as if there is anything the Obama administration wouldn't stoop to.

[villager]

11. "Hope" you didn't think there'd really be "change!"

Cause there sure ain't!

[MsLeopard]

46. Yes we can!!

But we won't, suckers!

Just wanted to add my 2 cents.....

[villager]

50. "Yes we could!"

"But we didn't!"

Indeed.

[Catherina]

12. Another change... allows the agency to keep the e-mails of or concerning Americans for up to 6 years

Another change approved by Bates allows the agency to keep the e-mails of or concerning Americans for up to six years, with an extension possible for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes. Because the retention period begins “from the expiration date” of the one-year surveillance period, the court effectively added up to one year of shelf life for the e-mails collected at the beginning of the period.

[AzDar]

14. Who IS this clown I worked so hard to help elect?

[Yo_Mama]

27. He's not a clown

but he's not the person so many of us thought we were electing. We thought we were electing a constitutional law professor with a broader perspective, and instead we got a person who is somewhat Nixonian on these issues.

Not that President Obama is unique - this current wave of massive NSA surveillance began under Clinton, accelerated under Bush, and now is accelerating again under Obama. Three two-term presidents who have pissed upon the US Constitution in a startlingly coherent way.

The continuity here makes me think that the intelligence cohort persists administration after administration, and convinces presidents that they can deliver the goods. But I think they are failing, and throwing the constitutional baby out with the national security bathwater. However if you accept the basic proposition, one can see how this could happen. Each new incident is used to say "But if we only had THIS capability, we could take care of such problems!" And they always get what they ask for.

This could only have happened behind the scenes, and secrecy is essential to keep up this drive.

I believe the Obama administration deliberately allowed Snowden to escape - I don't think they could have permitted him to come back and be tried, because a jury might not have convicted, and they could not have allowed him to present a defense in court. The resulting legal battle would have been on the front pages for years.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Indi Guy.

[littlewolf]

16. K & R

[Jackpine Radical]

17. This is all a Big Misunderstanding on the part of all you Obama haters.

You never liked him, admit it.

Pretty soon now the Pros will come & make Sense of it for you, and you's see you're arely on the Staircase to Heaven.

You think it would have been better if Romney had been elected?

(quietly waiting for Poe's Law to strike me dead.)

[jsr]

20. LOL

[zipplewrath]

25. Yup

I expect several grey boxes and alot of blue links explaining how killing innocent people is the proper thing to do to prevent the killing of innocent people.

[OnyxCollie]

26. +1. nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

30. Poe's law already applies to the lunatic non-Democratic left

I mean seriously. There's already someone in this thread saying that the Obama administration representing its opinion before a court is "Fascism", and someone else responding to your post as if monitoring phone calls is killing innocent people.

How could I possibly parody that even further? Poe's law indeed.

Oh. From the article itself, The court said that: The queries must be “reasonably likely to yield foreign intelligence information.” And the results are subject to the NSA’s privacy rules.

So unless you've been sending money to foreign charities called "ThePeacefulBenevolenceAssociationAndKillAllTheJews", it's highly unlikely you've been spied on.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Indi Guy]

31. Who decides what is, “reasonably likely to yield foreign intelligence information”?

The NSA - right? And given that there's enough vagueness in that ruling to drive an AT&T truck through, there's nothing there to hold NSA's feet to the fire visa vi domestic spying. ...no teeth in the court's decision.

Will agencies inevitably use every bit of power that they're given? I think history clearly answers that question.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. You're an apologist for some dark stuff, conservative.

Take what you're selling to someone gullible enough to swallow it.

[Mojorabbit]

59. LOL nt

[DirkGently]

21. Nice. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

23. If this were a Republican president

we'd all be claiming that part of the motivation for the Syria proposal were to knock stories like this out of the mainstream press.

I knew Obama was a hawk before electing him, and I think McCain's performance recently shows why we didn't have a realistic choice - there were no doves in the race.

But it has come as a shock to me to find that Obama's public statements about surveillance were so at odds with his administration's acts, which have pushed the surveillance state ever onwards.

[NOVA_Dem]

33. I wish they would hold off on these stories until Syria was less of a calamity.

These important issues are getting buried.

[Yo_Mama]

52. I think holding off on these stories is the worst thing to do

There will always be another crisis. Always.

[Indi Guy]

39. If this were a Republican president...

...we'd be calling for impeachment. ...Then we'd be pointing to potential hidden agenda.

Shocked? Yeah, me too. I believed him when he said (as I quoted in a subsequent post), "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."

[Yo_Mama]

51. Yes, I know it hurts

We're mostly all reeling around.

It's important not to let the hurt start talking. We have to back off and figure out the policies necessary, then campaign for them strongly without vitriol.

The bottom line is that for all of my lifetime, Republicans have not been big supporters of the Constitution. Thus if we lose the Democrats, we are in deep, deep shit. It's time to hit our congressional representatives hard and never let up.

[Indi Guy]

54. Bottom line -- We didn't put up with this kind of BS from Bush...

...and no one should tolerate it from Obama. That's it -- period.

[Indi Guy]

58. Scroll up to post #13 n/t

[kath]

28. Ain't it fokkin' GREAT having a Constitutional Scholar in the WH?!?? And one that calls himself

A Democrat to boot??

WOO-HOO

[PSPS]

32. Our so-called "constitutional scholar" strikes again!

What a heinous charlatan.

[Indi Guy]

55. Maybe Jesse Ventura isn't far off in his new book...

"DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans"
No more gangs in government

[Indi Guy]

34. Campaign promises, 'Obama on Surveillance in 2007'...

"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/no-comment-necessary-obama-on-surveillance-in-2007/?_r=0

[cantbeserious]

41. Hope And Change Officially In Flames

eom

[NoodleyAppendage]

35. Here's the perfect excuse for House Repubs to file impeachment charges.

If subverting the Constitution doesn't fit the threshold, I don't know else would do.

[SamKnause]

36. Obama Administration

Domestic War Propaganda is now legal in the U.S. !!!!

As of July 2013 War Propaganda is legal in the U.S.

Two laws were nullified by an amendment that was slipped into the NDAA bill; Smith/Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Act in 1987.

The MIC certainly didn't waste anytime implementing the new war mongering tool.

It seems there are many hidden agendas in this administration.

[cantbeserious]

40. There It Is - Hope And Change In Flames - Obama - Deliberately Desecrating Of The 4th Amendment

eom

[blkmusclmachine]

47. Hope.

Change.

Bullsh!t.

[questionseverything]

49. any of the msm covering this?

i when like to know exactly when in 2008 the govt asked for the ban