General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law
ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Lawhttp://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
(13,364 posts)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
(30,439 posts)It was entirely legal.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)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
(3,891 posts)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
(30,439 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)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
(32,886 posts)"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?
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
(8,582 posts)Just don't lie saying he broke the law.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)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.
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
(19,326 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)It becomes more complicated when it competes with a claim of national security.
I'm not making this shit up.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)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
(3,811 posts)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 cant 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
(10,622 posts)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
(90,364 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)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
(32,886 posts)there, fact after fact, with history, legal opinions cited and who did what and when.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)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
(32,886 posts)I prefer the facts though. I'm sure you will understand.
I'll put you down in the "I fear facts" category.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)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.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)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
(82,383 posts)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
(10,622 posts)I say we simply follow the constitution. You are projecting way too much, the language is quite simple, what don't you understand here?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)alp227
(32,052 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)With an illegal law. So it's Ok.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/doj-tells-court-its-reconsidering-secrecy-surrounding-patriot-acts-spying
dkf
(37,305 posts)Argh.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)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
(83,900 posts)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
(53,661 posts)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
(83,900 posts)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
(25,029 posts)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
(2,842 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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
(25,029 posts)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
(37,305 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)And you post that image?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Know what I mean?
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)there too.. with very sad fucking faces.
olddots
(10,237 posts)It's a great site
Cha
(297,655 posts)it's lost on those who have been cheering for the downfall of PBO.
sheshe2
(83,900 posts)It's a feeding frenzy right now.
The blood is in the water, the mindless follow.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 05:30 PM - Edit history (2)
it's fake Blood!
To bad the don't know that!
Thanks Cha~
Yes, they the cheerleaders. Negative ones. Always grabbing onto some pathetic exaggeration. This is just like the chained CPI thing.
wandy
(3,539 posts)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
(8,244 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)sheshe2
(83,900 posts)a2liberal
(1,524 posts)though probably not in the sense that you meant it
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)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
(62,325 posts)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
(116,464 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(116,464 posts)"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 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 Nixons 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