For some, the goal is to portray the program as a crime

[ProSense]

Only during the Obama administration can the leak of classified information about a legally conducted program lead to a frenzy of claims that gradually spin the revelations into something criminal.

The commentary and reports are becoming careless and terms are being thrown around despite the facts.

The administration was "spying on Americans."

Conflating the programs with Bush's warrantless wiretapping and illegal eavedropping.

The programs was "criminally subverting the Constitution"

It's spin aimed a convince people that the administration did something illegal.

[LondonReign2]

1. And for some, the goal is to whitewash everything the administration does

[ProSense]

2. So you're OK with people spinning this as a "crime"? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

8. It is a crime, people. Why hate on our freedoms?

[veganlush]

51. crime is a real word

with a real definition. the program is legal.

[grahamhgreen]

64. Sorry, it's not the intent of any law to give the government records of all telephone calls.

[veganlush]

65. it's call LOGS

it's just like your phone bill. which numbers connected, and how long was the connection, at what time and date.

[grahamhgreen]

67. Right, like what a police state would do. Not the intent of any law. Violates 4th amendment. Illegal

[veganlush]

76. you,re not saying

Anything. You're not making sense

[veganlush]

66. crime would mean it's iilegal.

it isn't. Words mean things.

[grahamhgreen]

68. Right, like what a police state would do. Not the intent of any law. Violates 4th amendment. Illegal

PS - typo!

[veganlush]

74. then you havent read

Or dont understand the amendment.read it carefully. Define unreasonable. The amendment doesnt forbid searches like these.

[avaistheone1]

31. Interesting thread.. given you just posted a flimsy Business Insider article

in an attempt to spin Snowden as guilty of treason (doing something illegal).

[L0oniX]

10. +1 ...and very consitant about it. For some the POTUS is the perfect g0d.

[Marr]

18. +1, done-- right out of the gate.

[Matariki]

27. You mean the job is to whitewash...

[reformist2]

80. LOL, that deserves an award for best 1st response!

[LondonReign2]

84. I've come for my reward

This is the Awards for Industry and Free Enterprise
So let me sit you down and tell you how I won first prize
I took on your free enterprise and your pretty little shops
Walked in with empty bags and walked out with the lot
CHORUS:
So I've come for my award, I've come for my award
I thought I'd come in person that's the least I can afford
Let hands be shook
Champagne poured
Sentence ignored
Yes. I've come for my award
This is the Awards for Industry and Free Enterprise
Anyone want a gold watch in a ladies' size?
There's a few more round the back
I stole them from your shop
We've got no more in silver, that's all that you'd got
CHORUS
I chatted with your guards and winked at roving eye
A thousand hidden cameras were searching cross the sky
But they didn't see me pinch them from underneath their eyes
CHORUS:
Jesus was my greatest accomplice
Jesus was my greatest accomplice
Jesus was my greatest accomplice
Yes, I've come for my award
Hairdrier, overcoat, telly, dot-to-dot
Video, compact disc, there's nothing we forgot
Whilst I was busy smiling my father got the lot
I've come for my Aaward

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/b/beautiful_south/

[EC]

3. It's being received as "That black man is breaking into my home"

by those who "don't want to be told what to do by a black man" types. (That is something a candidate said by the way.)

[cali]

5. right. one couldn't possibly be against the massive expansion of surveillance unless one

is racist.

[JoePhilly]

54. When did this sudden "massive expansion" happen?

[allin99]

78. Only counts when it's Bush.

[L0oniX]

11. WTF

[LondonReign2]

19. We know...any criticism of the actions of the Administration is racist

[sibelian]

48. Oh, GROTESQUE.

That's the most nakedly manipulative piece of wilful wordfuckery this entire issue has produced.

How could ANYONE think that garbage is going to stick?

[cali]

4. the fig leaf of legality. Again.

The administration is spying on Americans and you know that. That is definitive. That is fact.

And there is so much secrecy in the national security agencies we don't really know if illegal programs are ongoing. Historically, of course, we know that these agencies have a long history of such activities. It's naive and bone stupid to think that all illegal activities have come to a sudden halt because the President is a democrat.

I don't see this as being as much about this administration as it is about an enormous secretive bureaucracy with very sketchy oversight.

[ProSense]

7. May I

"The administration is spying on Americans and you know that. That is definitive. That is fact. "

...quote you:

I'm afraid we don't know that.

History is replete with denials from NSA and the CIA that we later found out were entirely false.

You may now return to your pathetic apologist, sycophant bullshit.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2993053

[Matariki]

28. Always moving the bar

just a few days ago it wasn't happening at all. now it's happening but 'legal'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Maybe not criminal, in the legal sense, but certainly unjustifiable, in the moral sense.

Just as it was once legal in this country to own slaves, beat your wife, and incarcerate people because of their race. Legal? The courts said so at the time. Morally justifiable? No.

[msongs]

9. once again the "it's legal" excuse is raised - following orders is no excuse nt

[ProSense]

12. Following laws is what makes it legal. There isn't another definition. n/t

[cali]

13. The Nuremberg Laws were legal. Supporting them was immoral and heinous.

you parrot it's legal as if that makes it right.

[L0oniX]

15. Are you trying to talk sense?

I agree with you.

[WillyT]

17. Jim Crow Was Legal, Dred Scott Was A Legal Ruling, Slavery Was Legal...

There's lots more... all throughout History.

[ProSense]

20. Please

"The Nuremberg Laws were legal. Supporting them was immoral and heinous. you parrot it's legal as if that makes it right."

...save the dramatic nonsense for people who buy into that crap. You've been posting about how none of this is new, and name calling to make your point. People understand that laws can be challenged.

The fact is the President Obama took the legal route and went through the FISA court. You cannot erase that fact.

This country has a history of surveillance. Hell, the FISA court was implemented to safeguard against the very kinds of issues being discussed.

The government has been collecting information for decades. The question has always been whether or not those activities violate the Constitution, even when they are in compliance with existing laws.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966764

In the aftermath of this leak, it interesting watching people resort to hyperbolic prose and moving the goal post while misrepresenting the facts. Here are some assessments related to challenging the program.

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging NSA's Patriot Act Phone Surveillance

By Brett Max Kaufman

<...>

The ACLU's complaint filed today explains that the dragnet surveillance the government is carrying out under Section 215 infringes upon the ACLU's First Amendment rights, including the twin liberties of free expression and free association. The nature of the ACLU's work—in areas like access to reproductive services, racial discrimination, the rights of immigrants, national security, and more—means that many of the people who call the ACLU wish to keep their contact with the organization confidential. Yet if the government is collecting a vast trove of ACLU phone records—and it has reportedly been doing so for as long as seven years—many people may reasonably think twice before communicating with us.

The kind of personal-data aggregation accomplished through Section 215 also constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Last year, in a case on GPS tracking by police, five members of the Supreme Court indicated support for the common-sense notion that government collection of individual bits of seemingly innocuous personal information over a long period of time could amount to such a complete invasion of privacy that it would be unconstitutional. The surveillance program that came to light with the release of the FISC order constitutes precisely that kind of unreasonable incursion into Americans' private lives.

Finally, the ACLU's complaint charges that the executive branch's use of Section 215 violates the plain language of the statute itself. The statute requires that records seized under its authority be "relevant" to an authorized foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. But while that language imposes a real limitation on when the government can use Section 215, the FISC order covering all VBNS customers demonstrates that this "relevance" restraint is shockingly inadequate. Similarly, the FISC order shows that the government—with the FISC's secret approval—is acquiring future records of telephone subscribers based on the same "relevance" requirement, even though the statute uses words that clearly show it was only meant to cover "tangible things" already in existence.

With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts: in our ongoing FOIA litigation seeking the government's secret interpretation of the law; in the FISA Court through yesterday's public-access motion; and now, in a constitutional lawsuit in federal court. When the government is claiming such chillingly expansive surveillance powers, it's all hands on deck. Stay tuned.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

Section 215 of the Patriot Act - FOIA (includes list of FOIA requests and documents release)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/section-215-patriot-act-foia

ACLU Motion in FISA Court for Release of Court Records - In Re Orders Issued by This Court Interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-motion-fisa-court-release-court-records-re-orders-issued-court-interpreting

Here's my question: Is everyone prepared for a decision siding with the Government?

I ask because some people appear unwilling to debate. It's either "accept this position or you're "naive" or "stupid."

Their postion is that there is nothing to debate.

This is a situation in which a balance has to be struck between Constitutionality, national security, privacy and the need to know.

It's not a cut-and-dry issue like gay rights or voting rights. Equality period!

In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.

Also, think about the current SCOTUS. Are you prepared?

CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ET AL. v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf

Additionally, Congress is going to act at some point, and everyone knows the sausage-making process involved in writing and passing laws.

Senators: End Secret Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022993363

There will be a debate, and as everyone knows opinions will vary and there will be many attempts to introduce misinformation.

If the Patriot Act is repealed, should the secret FISA Court be abolished?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999502

[TheKentuckian]

39. We don't think our rights are fodder for you or the President's debate

We can debate a constitutional amendment or the security state can take a step back.

[ProSense]

55. "We can have an informed debate about the wisdom of this law only if we know what our courts..."

We can have an informed debate about the wisdom of this law only if we know what our courts have taken it to mean and why.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

"With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997462

[Life Long Dem]

34. It makes it legal

I don't think anyone is saying that makes things right.

[Katashi_itto]

85. Total BS, simple Authoritarian argument. "It's the Law, so it must be ok...!"

[L0oniX]

14. The usual authoritarian response "it's legal" ...should have sleeping pills dispensed with it.

[ProSense]

22. The usual obfuscation about the legality of the program is a straw man. n/t

[AlinPA]

16. It's odd. Fox 'news' calls Snowden a hero; Boehner says he is a traitor. McConnell says he should be

prosecuted.......... Since the President is being criticized about the program, you'd think those two would bash Obama and call Snowden a hero. It's all crazy.

[mick063]

21. This anxiety over protecting the President's image is tiresome.

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:27 PM - Edit history (2)

Chained CPI, Eric Holder's "too big to prosecute", Goldman Sachs guiding our economic policy from within the cabinet, and now universal surveillance without cause.

Just give up on defending him. A colossal failure. Even with the Teabillie obstructionism taken into account.

[ProSense]

23. Are you saying

"This anxiety over protecting the President's image is tiresome."

...that those who aren't interested in "protecting the President's image" don't care if people are trying to portray this a "crime"?

Maybe it's just that I think it's wrong and smacks of an agenda.

[LondonReign2]

25. "Maybe it's just that I think it's wrong and smacks of an agenda. "

Something does indeed smack of an agenda here

[Demit]

32. That's your problem. You accuse people of motives they don't necessarily have.

You've been doing it for days now. Over and over and over. You and a couple of others. And all it shows me is that you don't want to address people's honest fears of a developing surveillance state. You'd rather impugn people's motives. You couldn't possibly think that's in any way persuasive, either to them or to people just reading the threads. Do you?

[ProSense]

36. You know what,

"That's your problem. You accuse people of motives they don't necessarily have. You've been doing it for days now. Over and over and over. You and a couple of others. And all it shows me is that you don't want to address people's honest fears of a developing surveillance state. You'd rather impugn people's motives. You couldn't possibly think that's in any way persuasive, either to them or to people just reading the threads. Do you?"

....you clearly have no idea what I post, and you don't seem me posting threads like this:

You have to be utterly ignorant of history, in a state of denial, dumb as grits or...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986025

Apparently, that's fine with a lot of people, and some of them are likely making comments like yours projecting their hypocrisy.

[Demit]

37. Juvenile way to respond.

Your whole approach to this topic, and to other people, is a juvenile lashing out. You're not even thinking before you comment now. First, of course I know what you post, you made six or seven posts in this thread alone, before mine! Second, "comments like yours projecting their hypocrisy"? Lol, whut? Do you just have a set of go-to accusations and pull one out without bothering to see if it fits the context?

Do you know how you look to someone just reading through these threads?

[ProSense]

41. You're

Juvenile way to respond.

Your whole approach to this topic, and to other people, is a juvenile lashing out. You're not even thinking before you comment now. First, of course I know what you post, you made six or seven posts in this thread alone, before mine! Second, "comments like yours projecting their hypocrisy"? Lol, whut? Do you just have a set of go-to accusations and pull one out without bothering to see if it fits the context?

Do you know how you look to someone just reading through these threads?

...posting condescending nonsense and have the nerve to call someon "juvenile"?

I know how "you look" trying to hijack this thread with your silly accusations.

I've posted many threads, but here you are in this one launching personal attacks.

"With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997462

[Demit]

42. What a bizarre accusation. I didn't even post in the thread you link to.

You're nuts.

[TBF]

43. lol - no she's just doing her job

whatever the hell that happens to be. And getting more and more defensive as folks are calling her on the crap.

There is no leg to stand on here, straw or otherwise. The Patriot Act may make these actions "legal", but that doesn't mean it jives with the 4th amendment. Of course we're screwed with the current supreme court of fascists because I'm pretty sure they'd agree with spying on Americans.

[ProSense]

47. What are you doing?

"And getting more and more defensive as folks are calling her on the crap. "

Oh look, you're in with a kewl strawman crowd. Speaking of "nuts."

[TBF]

50. I wasn't the one who called you "nuts" -

and as the resident communist I'm quite sure I'm way less popular than you.

But you know that - you're very good at your job.

[ProSense]

58. It appears

"...as the resident communist I'm quite sure I'm way less popular than you. But you know that - you're very good at your job."

...the reason for such innuendo is because of an inferiority complex or a lack of confidence in one's own arguments.

[Demit]

52. I think it might be an autobot that needs rebooting.

Its logic has gotten all screwy.

[ProSense]

60. Did you say something about being "juvenile"? n/t

[TBF]

69. There was never any logic there to begin with -

the program is as follows "all Obama, all the time".

And I really don't mind folks defending the president and being thankful for Obama in office. On behalf of most women out there I think I can safely say we were appalled at the possible alternative. But that doesn't mean he's right about everything, and it doesn't mean we can't discuss his various policies and actions.

[ProSense]

46. "You're nuts."

And you're desperately trying to prove you're not.

[tridim]

29. I will defend him when people lie and say that he killed social security with "chained CPI"

Hint: No, he didn't. And no, he will not.

And BTW warrants are not issued without cause. That too is a lie.

[TheKentuckian]

38. Yup, cause they want to, cause they can get away with, cause it brings power, cause it is profitable

cause they can make it "legal", and cause they think they are cloaked in secrecy.

There is no just or probable cause for a warrant for "everyone".

[SlimJimmy]

63. +1 Well stated.

There is no just or probable cause for a warrant for "everyone".

[Andy823]

40. So you think the president is a failure?

I guess you voted for Romney then?

Then again you did say last night we could do worse that Christie, on both sides.

Maybe your anxiety about making the president look bad is tiresome also?

[TBF]

45. lol - sure every damned progressive on this board lost their mind and voted for Romney.

Are you insane? We voted for Obama because he was better on social issues. We're absolutely screwed on finance (income inequality) and "terra". Folks can whitewash it and scream racism but you've got millions of people in this country that are completely fed up with the continued nonsense. Pushing more and more of them out of work and on to the streets really isn't a great idea. Are you going to turn your drones on protestors next?

[Andy823]

61. Not sure why you are replying

My comment was to a poster that said president Obama was a " Colossal failure". Now when someone says that it makes me wonder. I don't support every thing the president has done, but colossal failure is going a tad bit overboard wouldn't you think?

Yes we have problems in this country, and they need to be addressed, but if we don't get congress to change the laws, and make new ones it won't happen. Blaming the president for everything that goes wrong does not good at all since he does not make or revoke the laws. As for your drone comment, are you insane? How in the world did my comment to another poster make you say such a thing?

[Life Long Dem]

24. True

The way the word spying is used could be used against any warrant legally issued to search and seize.

[flamingdem]

26. Yes, Snowden used the term criminal, what an incredible

coincidence.

[bowens43]

30. havent seen that. whether or not it's legal is irrelevent.

but you keep spinning , I'm getting a kick out of it.

[annabanana]

33. Should we be arguing legality? Or should we be arguing WHY and HOW we

have gotten to that point?

[avaistheone1]

35. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"

[sibelian]

49. Ah, the *appearances* of things, again, Prosense.

It is your favourite subject.

"YOU MAKE NO SENSE" on 5...4...3...2...

[JoePhilly]

53. The shift to the term SPYING is an attempt to avoid discussing details.

They had been using the term "wire tap" even though this is not wiretapping. As it started to become clear that the wrong term was being used (as the DETAILS) came out ... the narrative had to shift AWAY from the details.

So, collecting meta data became "wiretapping", and as that falsehood started to fall apart, they moved to SPYING which is a far broader and less specific term.

What the use of the term SPYING does is allows the individual to use their imagination to fill in the gaps.

And suddenly, we are all Will Smith in "Enemy of the State."

[markiv]

56. nice try, squealer nt

[KurtNYC]

57. The goal should be to stop any ongoing unconstitutional practices. Period.

Also since you seem to have an issue with the phrase "criminally subverting the Constitution" let me ask -- is there a way to subvert the Constitution which is NOT criminal?

Any law which gets passed which is unconstitutional is invalid and therefore cannot excuse or protect unconstitutional practices.

[dkf]

59. No, the sadder thing is if all this IS legal.

I would never have thought the Government was allowed to legally do this and if they are we are in trouble.

Just like the tax laws, the entire point may be to get around the laws and craft things which on the face of it ought to be illegal but which the Government had found loopholes. When the Government starts trying to use the law creatively there is no restraint.

[Not water]

86. Kick nt

[liberal_at_heart]

62. It is up to us to put pressure on them to recall the law that makes it legal.

[Number23]

70. Yep. We can hate it as much as we want but it's not illegal

It has Congressional oversight.

It is supported by large majorities of the American public AND both houses of Congress. Even polls taken directly after the Snowden leak and the week long shriek-fest immediately afterwards showed that almost half of Americans still support the program. Once the administration puts out the numbers on attacks that have been "thwarted" by this program, that number will likely rise.

This "it's illegal" and "it's unconstitutional" arguments are as pointlessly stupid as the frothing that "Obama=Bush." A public awareness program needs to be created to get Congress to repeal this law. That's the only way this is going to get changed. Once again Obama will have to put his magic wand away and people will actually have to do some damn work.

[ProSense]

71. Yup, and here's the thing

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

"Yep. We can hate it as much as we want but it's not illegal"

...people are making up all sorts of claims and conflating these programs.

Prior to the FISA amendments, Bush was intentionally targeting Americans in collecting metadata without a warrant and bypassing the FISA Court.

That was illegal, but more specific is the fact that Bush was actually eavesdropping on Americans.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency -- the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world -- and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency." The friendly agency was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-26.htm

The fact that the FISA amendment gave the telecoms retroactive immunity for their role in the law-breaking acivity is being misinterpreted to mean the law made Bush's activities legal.

That's like claiming that someone given immunity for cooperating in a criminal investigation means that the crime being investigated becomes legal.

Also, the collection of metadata isn't new.

<...>

Pen Registers and Trap and Trace

Pen registers and trap and trace devices provide non-content information about the origin and destination of particular communications. Because this information does not contain the content of the communication, it is subject to lesser restrictions than actual content. The Supreme Court has long held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this information because the telecommunications company has ready access to it; in fact, the company must utilize this information to ensure the communications are properly routed and delivered. The Pen-Register Act covers pen registers/trap and trace.

In the context of phone calls, Pen-Registers display the outgoing number and the incoming number. Because e-mail subject lines contain content, their use on e-mails, per revisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, must include the sender and addressee, but avoid any part of the subject. IP addresses and port numbers associated with the communication are also fair game under the Act.

The regulations specifically apply to "devices" that capture this information. Thus, ECPA generally prohibits the installation or use of any device that serves as a pen register or trap and trace. Amendments in the USA PATRIOT Act allow the term devices to also encompass software.

At his trial, Katz sought to exclude any evidence connected with these wiretaps, arguing that the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth constitutes an unreasonable search of a "constitutionally protected area" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The federal agents countered by saying that a public phone booth was not a "constitutionally protected area," therefore, they could place a wiretap on it without a warrant.

http://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/

The program implemented in the aftermath of Bush's illegal collection of the data, requires a warrant from the FISA court, and it's still illegal to target Americans.

Eavesdropping on Americans is against the law.

The thing that has to be addressed is the scope and methods for collecting information when targeting foreigners, to ensure that the privacy of Americans is protected. The immunity issue is a potential problem because if the telecoms aren't accountable, they will always be accomplices.

[Number23]

73. People on this web site call it illegal even when told POINT BLANK that it's not

The "even though it's not breaking any crimes, it's STILL illegal!" mentality is like the world's saddest joke. I don't even entertain that type of stupidity and it's very telling that this is such a popular theme around here.

Your NY Times link is a great one. The program was illegal when there was no need to get a warrant. That has been changed. President Obama, who inherited and DID NOT CREATE the Patriot Act, has taken this foul law and made it marginally better.

It needs to be repealed. THAT is where the works needs to be done, not sitting around burning calories shrieking "Obama =Bush! Obama Bad, Obama bad!!" like some deranged parrot. And it's going to be an incredibly uphill battle because like I said, it's got wide support in both houses of Congress (R and D) as well as the American people (R and D). If people are genuinely upset about this and are not just posturing for the cool kids, then there is alot of work that needs to be done.

[99Forever]

72. It is a crime against the Constitution.

The only spin is coming from people like you.

It's what you do. Always.

[ProSense]

75. Can you

"It is a crime against the Constitution.

The only spin is coming from people like you.

It's what you do. Always. "

...provide a link to the decision that determined that these activities are a "crime against the Constitution"?

Or do "people like you" believe that your "spin" is a fact?

Seems to me that there are people challenging this law and there is an ongoing debate, but no determination has been made.

Here's a little history lesson for "people like you": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023013882

[99Forever]

77. Read it.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[reformist2]

81. We don't have to wait for some court to tell us this is unconstitutional!

Three words: think for yourself!

[ProSense]

83. No,

"We don't have to wait for some court to tell us this is unconstitutional!"

...you don't. A lot of people also think the Department of Education and Obamacare are unconstitutional. Should people stop paying taxes because they believe the IRS is unconstitutional? Should Republican Governors ignore the health care law and Medicaid expansion because they believe it unconstitutional?

We can have an informed debate about the wisdom of this law only if we know what our courts have taken it to mean and why.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

You may not want to have the debate, but it's going to happen.

I'll repost this here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997462):

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging NSA's Patriot Act Phone Surveillance

By Brett Max Kaufman

<...>

The ACLU's complaint filed today explains that the dragnet surveillance the government is carrying out under Section 215 infringes upon the ACLU's First Amendment rights, including the twin liberties of free expression and free association. The nature of the ACLU's work—in areas like access to reproductive services, racial discrimination, the rights of immigrants, national security, and more—means that many of the people who call the ACLU wish to keep their contact with the organization confidential. Yet if the government is collecting a vast trove of ACLU phone records—and it has reportedly been doing so for as long as seven years—many people may reasonably think twice before communicating with us.

The kind of personal-data aggregation accomplished through Section 215 also constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Last year, in a case on GPS tracking by police, five members of the Supreme Court indicated support for the common-sense notion that government collection of individual bits of seemingly innocuous personal information over a long period of time could amount to such a complete invasion of privacy that it would be unconstitutional. The surveillance program that came to light with the release of the FISC order constitutes precisely that kind of unreasonable incursion into Americans' private lives.

Finally, the ACLU's complaint charges that the executive branch's use of Section 215 violates the plain language of the statute itself. The statute requires that records seized under its authority be "relevant" to an authorized foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. But while that language imposes a real limitation on when the government can use Section 215, the FISC order covering all VBNS customers demonstrates that this "relevance" restraint is shockingly inadequate. Similarly, the FISC order shows that the government—with the FISC's secret approval—is acquiring future records of telephone subscribers based on the same "relevance" requirement, even though the statute uses words that clearly show it was only meant to cover "tangible things" already in existence.

With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts: in our ongoing FOIA litigation seeking the government's secret interpretation of the law; in the FISA Court through yesterday's public-access motion; and now, in a constitutional lawsuit in federal court. When the government is claiming such chillingly expansive surveillance powers, it's all hands on deck. Stay tuned.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

Section 215 of the Patriot Act - FOIA (includes list of FOIA requests and documents release)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/section-215-patriot-act-foia

ACLU Motion in FISA Court for Release of Court Records - In Re Orders Issued by This Court Interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-motion-fisa-court-release-court-records-re-orders-issued-court-interpreting

Here's my question: Is everyone prepared for a decision siding with the Government?

I ask because some people appear unwilling to debate. It's either "accept this position or you're stupid."

Their postion is that there is nothing to debate.

This is a situation in which a balance has to be struck between Constitutionality, national security, privacy and the need to know.

It's not a cut-and-dry issue like gay rights or voting rights. Equality period!

In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.

Also, think about the current SCOTUS. Are you prepared?

CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ET AL. v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf

Additionally, Congress is going to act at some point, and everyone knows the sausage-making process involved in writing and passing laws.

Senators: End Secret Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022993363

There will be a debate, and as everyone knows opinions will vary and there will be many attempts to introduce misinformation.

[Harmony Blue]

82. Good post.

Time to the put spin meisters in their place.

[KurtNYC]

79. "Some" includes a FISA court who looked at the practices

and ruled some unconstitutional.

They aren't portraying it as a crime -- they are a court (a FISA court no less) and they ruled it unconstitutional.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion