Skip to main content

 These T-shirts are sold by novelty site that according to the article on the JudicialWatch blog site recently received “cease and desist” letters from the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security. And apparently NSA does not likes people pocking fun at them. One can only imagine how traumatizing it is must be for NSA employees listening to millions of calls when people making fun of them and knowingly abusing them verbally while NSA employee only doing their job, but cannot defend themselves since the they do not have a court warrant?!
   In fact, NSA and Justice department just got themselves into a pickle according to the articles - editorial in Washington Post "Big Brother’s lies" and in New York Times "Warrantless Surveillance Continues to Cause Fallout". In fact, both articles are dealing with the same issue that - using warrantless wiretapping and lies cover it up create more problems than to solve.

In the first article Washington Post editors wrote

Public trust in the federal government is at a record low.... The National Security Agency, for example, has been keeping tabs on where we go and when, listens to our telephone calls and reads our emails. If it wants, it could listen to a conversation with Granny, and let us know when we need to stop at the 7-Eleven for a quart of milk. Such all-knowing surveillance is supposed to thwart terrorism. Everyone wants to stop terrorism, so what’s wrong with a little surveillance?
Except that it’s simply not true that the NSA programs thwart crime
How, did Washington Post learn about it -- from a a friend of the court brief filed by US Senators Mark Udall of Colorado, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico in support of a coalition of two-dozen groups suing the National Security Agency to stop the eavesdropping.
Now we learn that the administration exaggerated the success story by counting every case in which a captured terrorist might have used a cellphone. “Of the original 54 that the government pointed to,” the senators said, “officials have only been able to describe two that involved materially useful information obtained through the bulk call-records program.” The senators think those two remaining cases could have been solved without blanket surveillance. It’s not possible to say what’s true and what’s not as long as the relevant information remains locked in the top-secret vaults at the various intelligence agencies.
In the second article Charles Savage of the New York Times wrote
The Justice Department has notified a Somali-American man who was convicted this year of trying to detonate a bomb in Portland, Ore., that his trial included evidence derived from warrantless wiretapping, a move that could disrupt plans to sentence him next month.
  Three United States senators [Senators Mark Udall, Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich] also sent a letter on Tuesday to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. accusing the government of misrepresenting surveillance policy to the Supreme Court in a case last year.
What even more complicates the problem that this year the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of such eavesdropping by Amnesty International on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that their communications had been intercepted under the law. While it should have been logically obvious that burden of proof should have been on NSA to provide evidence that it did not have the particular numbers in its databases (if that would be any other case plaintiffs could have subpoenaed relative defender's records). The court position is clearly hypocritical - as it seen from Justice Alito arguments on behalf of conservative majority "
this is mere speculation, and respondents have no evidence that their communications have been monitored under Section 1881a, or specific facts to show that communications of respondents' foreign contacts will be targeted, since, even if respondents could demonstrate that targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent, they can only speculate as to whether government will seek to use Section 1881a-authorized surveillance, rather than other methods
Additionally, as the Times article explains
The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to reject that case. It said the law would still be subject to judicial review, because criminal defendants facing evidence derived from warrantless surveillance would be notified of that fact and have standing to challenge it.

But it has since emerged that it was not the practice of National Security Division prosecutors to tell defendants when warrantless wiretapping had led to evidence in a case, something Mr. Verrilli had not known at the time of the Supreme Court case, even though his briefs and arguments assuring the justices otherwise had been vetted by the division. After the discrepancy came to light, Mr. Verrilli fought an internal battle to bring department policy in line with what he had told the court, ultimately prevailing.

Thus now it is obvious that NSA snooping is just a first step that is followed by the "travesty of a mockery of a sham" judicial process.

It is becoming more and more clear to the Congress and Courts that something has to be done about NSA spying. However, as another NY Times article Congress and Courts Weigh Restraints on N.S.A. Spying comments

The intensifying push against the N.S.A. on both the legal and legislative fronts reflected new pressure being put on the extensive surveillance effort in the wake of revelations by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, pressure that is running into stiff resistance from congressional leaders of both parties as well as the Obama administration.
We need to keep this pressure or to keep our civil liberties goodbye. Please us help by signing petitions to the Congress and White House, send a message to you friends urging them to sign the petitions before its too late. After the our rights and liberties gone it will be more difficult if not impossible to get them back.


Do you think that your freedom of speech, privacy and protection from warrantless searches are intact despite NSA snooping?

18%6 votes
3%1 votes
3%1 votes
75%25 votes

| 33 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site