Skip to main content

View Diary: NSA Monitored ALL Salt Lake City Texts/Emails For 6 Months (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have one: Clapper (12+ / 0-)

    How is it possible that guy can be the DNI unless his boss agrees with how thing were done in 2002? (That is, of course, a rhetorical question.)

    "Some folks rob you with a six-gun, some rob you with a fountain pen." - Woody Guthrie

    by Involuntary Exile on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 08:10:05 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  As of 2007 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      artmartin, mikidee, Reggid, mmacdDE

      the warrantless wiretapping was ended pro-actively by the people who erected it. I have no idea what Clapper's opinions about warrantless wiretapping were. Nor am I defending Clapper, who stands out as an enormous liability. In 2002 the Chief Executive set out a course of action for the NSA which it later rescinded under political pressure and from fear of possible criminal investigation (fears which were sadly groundless).

      But clearly the diary's thesis is to point out questionable behavior in 2002, and then pose the question "do we want this happening here now?" without any evidence to show equivalent programs underway. As I cited elsewhere, the Snowden documents themselves prove that statutory limits were imposed on types of data collection, limits which did not exist in 2002. Surely we should all be crying foul if it turns out that data has been misappropriated, in violation of current law. But the fact is that current law is more restrictive than it used to be, therefore at the very least when unconstitutional acts occur there is a system for redress, a system which did not exist when the "old" system was in place.

      •  Any system that prevents someone like Wyden (13+ / 0-)

        from telling the American people the truth he believes they need to know is a system that is rotten and decaying the whole foundation of democratic government.  

        You can spin this till you're dizzy but many of us just don't believe this bullshit anymore.  

        Governments either function on trust or force and ours seems to be choosing the latter.

      •  Pray tell, what is this system of redress (9+ / 0-)

        of which you speak when one is prohibited from knowing if one's constitutional rights have been violated? Exactly how am I to know if my private emails are being reviewed without a warrant or my movements are being tracked if I am prevented from asking the question?

        "Some folks rob you with a six-gun, some rob you with a fountain pen." - Woody Guthrie

        by Involuntary Exile on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 08:54:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You won't (0+ / 0-)

          just as you won't know if your local police force runs your license plate against a database to see if your car is stolen. You will know your emails were reviewed without a warrant if a case is brought against you in court and illegal evidence is attempted to be used against you. Also if you were to discover illegal wiretapping, for instance, you would have the basis to form a complaint, and if Congress uncovers persistent and pervasive illegal surveillance then those committing the violations would immediately become at risk of being found in legal jeopardy.

      •  Redress? (3+ / 0-)

        I'm sorry, but how does an activist who has been spied upon seek redress?  They are not allowed to know of they are being spied upon, they would not be allowed to sue to find out on national security grounds, and even if they did find out, they are likely to be denied standing and may even face prosecution themselves for finding out, depending on how it happens. Congress is being lied to, so we cannot say that Congress in a position to address the issue, and the courts also are being lied to and are utterly powerless to confirm the truth of what the NSA asserts and frankly given the way the NSA appears to have violated court orders, the court seems unable to enforce its will unless the NSA feels like it.  Having the administration decide it wants to stop after internal review is not addressing it, since a change of policy is not legally binding in any way

        Just what sort of redress do you thing there is?

        •  Depends on what you mean by "spied upon" (0+ / 0-)

          You might not know if a cop at a Saturday night check point runs your license plate to check if you have outstanding charges of some kind. And if it turns out you pass the check point, you will be oblivious in perpetuity.

          At the end of the day, all the "spying" only counts in terms of what's permissible to stand as evidence in a court of law. If evidence is illegally gathered, it is thrown out. We as citizens don't really have that much recourse as to how the police carry out their daily duties, but when it gets to the point that we become persons of interest in a criminal inquiry, that is the moment when our Constitutionally protected rights kick in and offer us "redress." I am not aware of any examples of people being arrested on the basis of NSA surveillance of their metadata and having illegally obtained evidence used against them to secure a conviction.

          That's the kind of "redress" I'm talking about.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site