NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon users: Why?

[Politico]

They should be punished for using Verizon lol.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, if you think so. Personally, I think he's entitled to his opinion. Maybe he has stuff to hide?

No, I'm asking you. Do you agree with him or disagree?

He's smarter than I on such matters, so I default to him. Personally, I don't give a shit.

You don't give a shit about anything, Lakhota.

 

[Lakhota]

No, I'm asking you. Do you agree with him or disagree?

He's smarter than I on such matters, so I default to him. Personally, I don't give a shit.

You don't give a shit about anything, Lakhota.

Not much...

 

[Papageorgio]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

I suspect left-wingers may be less outraged because they have less to hide. Just a guess...

Or maybe, they love government intrusion cuz it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, more government abuse of power.

The last two Presidency have been disastrous for our freedoms.

 

[editec]

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon users: Why?

Exactly.

Why?

Truly it makes no sense.

 

[Lakhota]

I heard they are targeting radical wingnuts.

 

[Papageorgio]

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon users: Why?

Exactly.

Why?

Truly it makes no sense.

It doesn't, it is alarming to say the least.

 

[Lakhota]

It may have something to do will illegal gun sales.

 

[S.J.]

It may have something to do will illegal gun sales.

It also may have something to do with identifying Obama's opponents.

 

[Papageorgio]

It may have something to do will illegal gun sales.

They are going after those who dislike Al Gore.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Even has Al Gore upset.

Al Gore: NSA Phone Records Collecting 'Obscenely Outrageous'

So, how 'bout it, Lakhota, you still giving Obama your unconditional support?

Well, he's keeping me safe and I sleep well at night - plus, I'm not trying to hide anything. How about you?

Safe from what? Certainly not from prying eyes. That's OK. Go back to sleep.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Secret courts. Invasions of privacy. Wars on nouns.

This administration is cary.

Obama makes Bush look grandfatherly.

When are they going to impeach the clown?

 

[The Rabbi]

Secret courts. Invasions of privacy. Wars on nouns.

This administration is cary.

Obama makes Bush look grandfatherly.

When are they going to impeach the clown?

Wars on nouns? I think the Obama Administration is guilty of gross malfeasance and negligence. But I never suspected them of harboring delusions of grammar.

Anyway, this puts the lie to all the " we have safeguards in place" bullshit. The rule is, If they can collect something, they will. If they can copy something, they will. If they can listen to something, they will. There is always some "good reason" out there to spy and collect information.
Maybe the outrage will be so great that the backlash will bring America back to being a better place.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

My continuing support of the USA PATRIOT Act and related laws has always been predicated on the need for oversight.

But now I have to confess that the opponents have a bit more of a point (or maybe it's just that their point has been a better one) than I have previously seen.

If "oversight" is so poorly utilized that a judge signs a warrant for an over-reaching 'subpoena' for records over which the law itself does not authorize collection, then the judge's "oversight" is kind of meaningless. It makes me wonder why did the judge sign the fucking subpoena?

But let's not let the ones SEEKING such information off the hook.

On a related matter, AG Eric Holder has now noted (with feigned lament) that he could not get the subpoena on Fox News Report Rosen without "labeling" Rosen a possible co-conspirator:

As for using the term “co-conspirator” in describing Rosen’s role in a leak investigation, Holder explained that the phrasing was necessary in order to get a search warrant.

"I don't like that, because it means that me as a government official, and who has great respect for the press, is in essence saying that the reporter who is doing his or her job, and doing that very important job, is somehow branded a criminal,” he said. “And I'm just not comfortable with that. And we're going to change it."

Well, you damn stupid dishonest motherfucker, here's a thought. If the claim wasn't true, and if you regret having to place such a label on Rosen to have a basis under the law to apply for a subpoena, then maybe you shouldn't TOLERATE or PERMIT a lie to be inserted into the fucking sworn affirmation in support of the application! If the law doesn't permit the issuance of a subpoena you want and the only way to get the subpoena is for you to lie, then DON'T apply for the subpoena.

YOUR simple expedient of 'so I had to lie' is totally unacceptable.

Holder should be removed from office immediately.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I expect to see the left wing outrage in

3.............



2....................


1.....................................

It's a continuation of a Bush administration policy. The fun part will be going back to those years and seeing what the usual suspects on the Right were saying about it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The 40 some odd page Rosen Search Warrant in PDF format is found here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.pdf

The TEXT version is found here (and it is easier to copy and paste portions using this version):

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702199/d-o-j-versus-james-rosen.txt

The part I find quite troubling is that the FBI Agent who signed the application had engaged in conversations with the AG's Office and it is thus indisputable that the AG was fully familiar with the lawful restrictions they had to seek to "get around" in order to apply for a subpoena.

8. Based on my training and experience, and discussions with the United States
Attorney's Omce, I have learned that the Privacy Protection Act (the codified at 42
U.S.C. 2000aa _e1_sgq., defines when a search warrant impacting media-related work product
and documentary materials may be executed. Section 2000aa(a) of the PPA states, in pertinent
part:

Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize any work product materials'? possessed by a person reasonably

* * * *
Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 5 of 36

believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or
other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce; but this provision shall not impair or afl'ect the ability of any government
officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such
materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person" possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal ofiense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of
the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials
or the infonnation contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the ofiense consists
of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to
the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other

enumerated statutes])

Other documents
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government oflicer or

employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to
search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials,' possessed

(1) in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public, are prepared, produced,
authored, or created, whether by the person in possession of the materials or by any other
person;

(2) are possessed for the purposes of communicating such materials to the public; and

(3) include mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of the person who prepared,
produced, authored or created such material.

42 U.S.C.
Section 2000aa-7(a) defines the terms "documentary materials" as follows:

"Documentary materials" as used in this chapter, means materials upon which information is
recorded, and includes, but is not limited to, written or printed materials, photographs, motion
picture films, negatives, video tapes, audio tapes, and other mechanically, magnetically or
electronically recorded cards, tapes, or discs, but does not include contraband or fiuits of a
crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or

5

Case Document 20-1 Filed 11/07/11 Page 6 of 36

by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book,
broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or afiecting interstate or
foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any
government oficer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or
seize such materials,

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials
has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the
materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or
employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions
of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the
receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or
the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be
conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of
the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the
national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the
provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or [other
enumerated statutes])

42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a) (emphasis added). Thus, section 2000aa(a) specifically exempts from its
prohibitions cases in which there is probable cause to believe that the possessor of media related
work product or documentary materials has committed a violation of section 793. * * * *

So, the Government HAD to claim that Rosen was possibly a criminal or co-conpirator in order to try to do their little end run.

And now the AG "regrets" that he had to make that claim?

It was either a true statement or it wasn't. Having the FBI (an agency under his official domain) make that claim to a court when it wasn't true, and Holder KNEW it wasn't true, is unconscionable.

At a very base line MINIMUM, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government cannot properly lie to the Judges or magistrates in the Judicial Branch or sit by silently and permit those under his official domain do so.

Holder has to be removed from office.

 

[Wildman]

Well, he's keeping me safe and I sleep well at night - plus, I'm not trying to hide anything.

is this ignorance or stupidity ?

 

[novasteve]

Forward!

Change!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well, he's keeping me safe and I sleep well at night - plus, I'm not trying to hide anything.

is this ignorance or stupidity ?

Yes.