"Mr President, nobody is saying that you broke any laws,

[bvar22]

[font size=3]...we're just saying that it is a little bit weird that you didn't have to."[/font] ---John Oliver's closing comment of the first segment of last night's Daily Show.
(John Oliver is sitting in for Jon Stewart this summer.)

This segment contains some enlightening video clips and comments that will help anyone understand the current uproar.

*a revealing clip of Senator Ron Wyden questioning the Director of National Intelligence Gen. James Clapper.
Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any data at all on Millions or Hundreds of Millions of Americans?"
The video of General Clapper's response is MUST SEE.

*"The FISA Court has to approve anytime the NSA wants to pull information out of this database."
"Last year, the NSA asked the FISA Court 1,789 times for authority to conduct Electronic Surveillance.
The FISA Court did not deny ANY of the Surveillance Requests."

"So they NEVER say NO.
We've essentially got NOTHING to hold the government back than a Rubber Stamp Court" (John Oliver comment)


This episode of the Daily Show replays this evening around 6PM (check you listings),
or can be accessed through the Daily Show website after a 24 hour delay.
If you have ANY confusion or questions about what is happening, this first segment cuts through all the BullShit.

It is a sobering indictment of the MSM that the most insightful political commentary can be found on America's "Comedy Channel".



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Maybe John Oliver doesn't understand that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land,

(Article VI, Clause 2), and that the Fourth Amendment provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V of our Constitution provides the exclusive process by which the Constitution can be amended.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Regardless of what they may do in Great Britain and elsewhere, our Constitution cannot be amended by passing a statute in conflict with the Constitution. Remember, our ancestors fought a war with Great Britain so that and we could determine our own destinies without following English law and practices.

[rhett o rick]

2. I disagree with your statement

"our Constitution cannot be amended by passing a statute in conflict with the Constitution."

Well I dont disagree literally but if Congress passes a law that appears to conflict with the Constitution and it goes unchallenged, it is the law of the land in spite of the Constitution. In addition, if the law gets challenged and the SCOTUS let's it stand, again, it's the law of the land.

I am not saying that I agree with what's going on, but the solution is to get our Congress to fix the law and get our Pres to enforce this law as intended by the Constitution per his oath.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Historically, there are some who agreed that reasoning,

as shown by the Dred Scott decision and the events leading up to it.

It may be a matter of perspective. In my experience, the school systems differ in different parts of the country. All of us are influenced by our experiences. IHMO, there are regions of the country where people are more inclined to accept the notion that statutes which are in conflict with the Constitution are valid until a court determines that they are not. Even then, as you appear to indicate, there are those who will not accept a court's ruling until an issue is decided by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

Let me ask a question, and it is not one to denigrate the South nor any portions of the West that were influenced by those to left the South after the Civil War and went to Western States. Were you educated in the South or the West? In retrun, I can tell you that I was partly raised in one of the Western States and also in Illinois where the grammer school teachers had a tendancy to believe that the plain words of the Constitution were the supreme law of the land. Those teachers may have been wrong, but I don't think so.

[loyalsister]

21. Good points

Solutions- advocate for s change via congress or find a case to bring a lawsuit.

[bvar22]

4. You might try watching the show...

...before commenting on what John Oliver does and doesn't understand.

You quote the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What John Oliver so deftly pointed out is that 4th Amendment "protections" are completely circumvented IF the Congress creates a Secret Court that essentially Rubber Stamps EVERY SINGLE Request for a Warrant!

The FISA Court granted Every Single Request for a Warrant from the NSA fro Electronic Surveillance last year.

Feeling secure in your person and papers?
The FISA Court warrants ARE A FARCE.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. On what factual basis do you believe that I don't watch the show?

The FISA Court is a farce. (In my opinion, even the Supreme Court is now a farce.)

Just because John Oliver is a comedian does not mean that anyone should give him a pass for saying that what was done was perfectly legal.

He may not have actually meant that. He may not have actually thought about it. But there are those, here and elsewhere, who are repeating the mantra that "it was legal."

No it was not legal, if what was claimed was legal is compared against the Supremacy Clause, the Fourth Amendment, and Article V.

When a person does not agree with John Oliver, that does not mean that they have not watched him.

I have watched him (but probably not as much as the NSA).

[JaneyVee]

3. Wait, they're collecting billions of peoples data and ONLY asked for 1,789 surveillance requests??

[bvar22]

5. Yes!

The data is collected and permanently stored.

If the NSA (or gawd knows who else) targets a Person of Interest,
like say, a Whistle Blower or someone who dares to Step out of Line,
and decides to target that person,
THEN the NSA gets a Rubber Stamped Warrant from the secret FISA Court (purely procedural) to comb through all the stored data to thresh out anything they might find useful,
or direct Electronic Surveillance to specifically target that individual.

I will post the clip tomorrow,
and you can watch Gen. James Clapper himself answer Senator Wyden's "Yes or No" question:
"Does the NSA collect any data at all on Millions or Hundreds of Millions of Americans?"

You can come back and tell what you think then.
We'll wait.

[JaneyVee]

6. Actually, Snowden alluded to the data not being stored permanently. He said it was stored

"for a period of time".

[woo me with science]

10. They have NO right to sweep up data this way.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



On what probable cause do they have any right whatsoever to sweep up and store MY private data, and that of millions of other Americans?

[bvar22]

12. But, woo, they ONLY requested 1,789 warrants,

.....of which the FISA Court refused ZERO,


and they managed to collect the electronic metadata on MILLIONS of Americans
from the one single warrant to seize Verizon's records.....
and THAT is only the ONE warrant we KNOW about today....

What are you all in a tizzy about?

Did you hear the Snowden was an unfriendly neighbor?

Move along now.
Nothing to see here.

[woo me with science]

17. Nothing to see except

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 07:51 PM - Edit history (4)

shameless, brazenly disingenuous propaganda.

This spying program revealed why Americans can't trust our government. But the quality of the propaganda...the vicious and ludicrous smears and the patently absurd deflections, rationalizations, and manipulations...being shoveled now to defend the shredding of our Constitution is driving home even beyond the existence of the program how deeply dangerous and untrustworthy the corporate authoritarians who have hijacked our government really are.

That being said....

Yes, it's a kangaroo court that approves everything and merely gives the illusion of legal selectivity. But *even if* it were approving only a small fraction of the requests to view and use the information collected, the government still has no business whatsoever sweeping up this private information from millions of Americans and storing it *in the first place.*

The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for searches and seizures. Building surveillance files full of the private, daily activities and communication of millions of citizens is what totalitarian governments do. It creates an entire infrastructure through which the government has the means to preemptively target any citizen they consider problematic, through access to the minute details of their lives.

They have no Constitutional authority to collect this information from private citizens en masse, without probable cause, in the first place.

[woo me with science]

19. bvar22, I added to my response to you above.

[JaneyVee]

13. You give way more info about yourself when you file taxes. Which isn't exactly voluntary.

[woo me with science]

15. If you believe information requested on tax forms is excessive,

perhaps you should outline which information you mean, and start protesting that, as well. The Constitution provides for the collection of taxes.

Now please read the Fourth Amendment and tell me on what probable cause the US government has the right to demand, collect, and store the contents of MY daily private phone calls, emails, and internet activity, and that of millions of other Americans?

[JaneyVee]

16. Here's the case legal scholars point to:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735

[woo me with science]

18. Give a coherent response to my question.

Don't just throw out a blue link and run away.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On what probable cause does the US government have the right to demand, collect, and store the contents of MY daily private phone calls, emails, and internet activity, and that of millions of other Americans?

[loyalsister]

20. Some of the posts here remind me of a couple television characters

Munch (SVU) and the curly haired guy from Bones both proudly believe that the FBI has surveillance files on them. And are disappointed that they don't. Do people really think they or others are going to be flagged over parking tickets or something?

[MjolnirTime]

9. At least you can admit that it was legal.

[woo me with science]

14. No. Unlawful by the US Constitution.

On what probable cause does the government have a right to seize my private information? Or that of millions of other Americans?

[nashville_brook]

11. k and r