It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This Proof Can Impeach Obama, Fire 2 NSA Officials, And Possibly Even Clear Snowden

page: 6
111
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 

I do not see any contradiction in what I posted. You provided zero elaboration on this.




“Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect.


Clothing, furnishings ect. are all physical tangible items that exist in your home or reasonable area to be considering effects. This does not apply to intangible electronic data that travels around the country and around the globe.




In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), federal officers, acting without a warrant, attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a telephone booth where the defendant engaged in a number of telephone conversations.


There appears to be something in here about a not having a warrant. The PRISM program had FISA warrants. That is a significant distinction between the two.




posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by aceamoeba
This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

The contents of the communications are protected by the 4th Amendment, as long as they stay inside the US. The metadata is not protected. When you send a letter through the mail, the Feds can look at the addresses on the envelope. If they want to open the envelope, they need a warrant. It's pretty much the same thing for your phone calls and electronic communications.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
if we fired every politician who lied we would have no politicians lol but I have never heard the word "impeach" so much until Obama came to office kind of makes me wonder



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by aceamoeba
This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

The contents of the communications are protected by the 4th Amendment, as long as they stay inside the US. The metadata is not protected. When you send a letter through the mail, the Feds can look at the addresses on the envelope. If they want to open the envelope, they need a warrant. It's pretty much the same thing for your phone calls and electronic communications.


FISA provided the warrant to do this.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 



Lying is not an impeachable offense.
So, you think it's ok for the president to lie to the American people, and we should just shut up about it?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by aceamoeba
 


Well common sense would dictate that you wouldn't need to perjur yourself to hide something if everyone already knew. As for congress supposedly all being in the know? I have been reading all sorts of news about them claiming that they didn't know unless they were on a limited committee. In fact if you want a complete list of those in the know, just hunt down my thread that has the information. I am also aware of a congressman that sought to find out info on this BEFORE the scandal broke and hit brick walls every way he turned. When I get home I can find that for you. It is a very informative read.

Dem. Senator disputes Obama’s claim that Congress was briefed.


Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday disputed a claim President Obama made at a press conference only moments earlier, when the president said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) domestic phone surveillance program.

Merkley said only select members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the program, and that he was only aware of it because he obtained “special permission” to review the pertinent documents after hearing about it second-hand.



Not really the best dispute when that Merkley himself was briefed on this. Are there any in congress saying they themselves were not briefed, because The President did say EVERY member of congress, contradicting what Merkley has said.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aceamoeba

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by aceamoeba
This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

The contents of the communications are protected by the 4th Amendment, as long as they stay inside the US. The metadata is not protected. When you send a letter through the mail, the Feds can look at the addresses on the envelope. If they want to open the envelope, they need a warrant. It's pretty much the same thing for your phone calls and electronic communications.


FISA provided the warrant to do this.


Can you please explain for little ol me what FISA stands for? And what exactly it was created for?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by aceamoeba
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 

I do not see any contradiction in what I posted. You provided zero elaboration on this.




“Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect.


Clothing, furnishings ect. are all physical tangible items that exist in your home or reasonable area to be considering effects. This does not apply to intangible electronic data that travels around the country and around the globe.




In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), federal officers, acting without a warrant, attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a telephone booth where the defendant engaged in a number of telephone conversations.


There appears to be something in here about a not having a warrant. The PRISM program had FISA warrants. That is a significant distinction between the two.


Ummmm, I think I was pretty clear, and so is the language. It is YOUR data... it is sent from YOUR home, carries your MAC address, which is specific to YOUR device(s) and is akin to a signature of YOUR computer, in YOUR home or in YOUR possession. The information is packaged in a way that has that unique signature on it so that it can be tied back to YOU. Very convenient of you to say that just because it isn't very carefully worded, that it's therefore OK.

If you sent a letter through the post office, and it was very very personal, perhaps contained medical information about you that could be very damaging given your profession, you're saying that because the post office is a Federal entity, that the post office workers, being government agents, have a right to read your mail without any probable cause? Just in case you "might" be a terrorist"?
That's the same rationalization you're trying to apply, it just doesn't work.

Do you even know what a FISA court is? What does the acronym stand for? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act... FOREIGN. PRISM does NOT authorize the collection of data on Americans, it is for spying on foreign assets.

I think you are seriously misunderstanding where the problem is. You are trying really hard to justify the Government's actions, which I find rather strange considering almost every other person on this forum disagrees with you. I've given you plenty of direct laws that show this.

It's a shame that there are even people like you, that believe this crap, out there.

~Namaste
edit on 15-6-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 


Having read just a portion of the back and forth you have been engaged in with other members of the thread, I would ask this one question of you, aceamoeba:

What have I (or anyone else in the US) done to give rise to a warrant being issued against me and my communications, therefore subject to being examined by the government? In other words, what probable cause are they acting on in regard to my communications?
edit on 15-6-2013 by totallackey because: grammar



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 


I have work to do right now. But evidence is the last thing you ask me for. Wait until I get home late tonight and pull out Big Bertha vs my IPAD.

edit on 15-6-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Dup post. But why waste space? This space for rent.
edit on 15-6-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by aceamoeba

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by aceamoeba
This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

The contents of the communications are protected by the 4th Amendment, as long as they stay inside the US. The metadata is not protected. When you send a letter through the mail, the Feds can look at the addresses on the envelope. If they want to open the envelope, they need a warrant. It's pretty much the same thing for your phone calls and electronic communications.


FISA provided the warrant to do this.


Can you please explain for little ol me what FISA stands for? And what exactly it was created for?


Isn't that something that you could just google on bing? Why would you ask a random person on an internet forum a question that can easily be found with an common internet search?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 


Because both you and our country have forgotten what FISA stands for. Read up!

edit on 15-6-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by aceamoeba

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by aceamoeba
This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

The contents of the communications are protected by the 4th Amendment, as long as they stay inside the US. The metadata is not protected. When you send a letter through the mail, the Feds can look at the addresses on the envelope. If they want to open the envelope, they need a warrant. It's pretty much the same thing for your phone calls and electronic communications.


FISA provided the warrant to do this.


You're wrong and you need to stop. You have no idea what you're talking about and are starting to sound silly.


The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court, AKA FISC) is a U.S. federal court authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 1803, Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1788, enacted October 25, 1978. It was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). The court oversees requests for surveillance warrants against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States by federal law enforcement agencies (primarily National Security Agency and the F.B.I.). FISA and its court were inspired by the recommendations of the Church Committee.


FISA doesn't not allow the government to open an American citizen's mail unless you are suspected of terrorism or are believed to be doing something that could harm US interests. It is not some broad sweeping warrant that grants them the right to intercept every single communication that every single American citizen makes. That's like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.

Friendly advice - stop posting here, take some time to go do a bit of research on the subject, and come back. Stop posting "matter of fact" statements without the facts. If it's your opinion, state that in your posts, please.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 





Isn't that something that you could just google on bing? Why would you ask a random person on an internet forum a question that can easily be found with an common internet search?


Why not just explain it since you were the one who brought the acronym up anyway...you do understand the APA Guide to writing, correct? It is generally incumbent upon the person writing the communication to make their writing as easy to understand as possible. Convention calls for a spelling out of acronyms prior to initial introduction. Convention also discourages replying in forms clearly demonstrating asshattery...



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by aceamoeba
 


Having read just a portion of the back and forth you have been engaged in with other members of the thread, I would ask this one question of you, aceamoeba:

What have I (or anyone else in the US) done to give rise to a warrant being issued against me and my communications being examined by the government? In other words, what probable cause are they acting on in regard to my communications?


Talking to someone on a watch list could be very suspicious for example. But there IS reason for concern over this. I take what The President has said very seriously and yes this is a discussion we ought to be having.

Truthfully, I don't know what you personally, or other Americans, have done to create probable cause. If you've got nothing to hide, this shouldn't bother you.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by aceamoeba
 





Isn't that something that you could just google on bing? Why would you ask a random person on an internet forum a question that can easily be found with an common internet search?


Why not just explain it since you were the one who brought the acronym up anyway...you do understand the APA Guide to writing, correct? It is generally incumbent upon the person writing the communication to make their writing as easy to understand as possible. Convention calls for a spelling out of acronyms prior to initial introduction. Convention also discourages replying in forms clearly demonstrating asshattery...


I disagree that spelling out acronyms is convention. You yourself used an acronym ans then failed to spell it out, so I'll have to bust you on that one.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 




Talking to someone on a watch list could be very suspicious for example. But there IS reason for concern over this. I take what The President has said very seriously and yes this is a discussion we ought to be having. Truthfully, I don't know what you personally, or other Americans, have done to create probable cause. If you've got nothing to hide, this shouldn't bother you.


So...YOU, aceamoeba, could be on a WATCH LIST!!! So, I am in trouble because I do not know you are on a watch list...So, let us start with the proper opening lines:

totallackey : "aceamoeba, before we engage in any further conversation via electronic means, I need to ask you a serious question. Please do not take offense, as I am just trying to cover my own behind...Are you, or have you ever been, on a watch list as described and maintained by the US Government?"
aceamoeba: "No, totallackey, I am not!" (Little does totallackey know, but aceamoeba is lying).
totallackey: "OKEY DOKEY!!! Let's meet for lunch!"

You see no problem with this!?!?!



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Some friendly advice, If you want the kind of security the USPS provides, then by all means, support the USPS!

I'm taking your advice and I'm going to stop posting for a little bit.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by aceamoeba
 


Yeah...how did you like that? By the way, American Psychological Association



new topics

top topics



 
111
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join