Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NSA surveillance is constitutional and legal. I know, I'm so unpopular right now

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I'm posting here since I cannot post in posse comitatus

Hello all! Today I'm providing open source information regarding the current myths about the NSA and surveillance. Yes, much of it is myth passed down from media storytelling and false interpretation mixed with word of mouth and no direct knowledge or participation, as are most things in life. Please don't take it personally. If you had me discuss the modern combustion engine or the NFL you'd find I'm a sucker for all the jokes, myths and misconceptions. Except blinker fluid, I know that one. And yes I'm a man, all man, except during football season and when jiffy lube is closed. Btw I'm from Seattle originally so Suck It Denver!

Let's jump right in

I find it interesting the belief of how conducting operations in accordance with law for over 35 years equates rogue, over reaching, to powerful yada yada yada. I get it, most just don't really know, they believe. I don't personally fall in the belief category in this particular situation because as previously stated this thread is not about the NFL. I have been invited to the Wednesday night show and will likely be asked about my credentials at that time so I will keep you in S U S P E N S E.

Let's start with the legal system and the Foreign Intelligence Survillance Act (FISA) and its courts.The FISA court only serve to authorize warrants, not collection methods. This court has nothing to do with determining what's legal, just what justifies warrants. It is also important to note what requires and does not require a warrant by law, and warrants are issued only for surveillance and searches not collection. Now not all cases legally require warrants. Additionally the court is ex parte and is presented with requests for warrants from the Dept of Justice, not the intelligence agencies. The agencies goes to the DOJ just like a cop would go to a district attorney and in turn the DA goes to the judge. And if the NSA is conducting surveillance, its a different organization requesting the warrant because this different organization is requesting the surveillance. Why? Keep going....

The NSA is not an independent agency, only one of them is, the CIA. As SIGINT their missions are in support of other intelligence and military assets, not their own. SIGINT doesn't drive anything, it's a support role. Human intelligence and counterintelligence are the driving forces for intelligence operations. Think CIA, DIA and FBI. So it's really the other organizations that give them their mission, maybe one and usually in coordination and support of several. Despite popular opinion what they do is in accordance with FISA. Which speaks to the baseless rogue concept. But wait there's more.

Despite some claims the chains of command for DOD agencies (DIA, NSA, NGIA, NRO and four others) have not been questioned or met with congress at any point in time, only the directors meet with congress. Also what the public sees is really for show. It's the classified information and actions that are scrutinized, which is done by classified committees for intelligence, one in each part of congress and is closed doors, decided and authorized before any director is questioned publicly. Congress tells them what's legal because congress writes the law. Nobody convinces a court what is legal because courts exist to adjudicate disputes and to carry out the administration of justice e.g. Warrants. But this gets better.

FISA was implemented in 1978 after six years of hearings to clarify what could be in the act and it wasn't USI that had input, they actually never really do. If you don't know USI is United States intelligence, referring to the entire umbrella of 16 agencies. Eight of which fall under the DOD. All of this so far is referred to as the pre FISA era. Because that era only had FISA as the driving force regarding, well, the acronym itself - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. We are now in the post FISA era as FISA is no longer the only document. The Terrorist Surveillance Act, Patriot Act, Protect America Act and the separate FISA Ammendments Act (not an all inclusive list) all have had some change, addition, ammendment or update in regard to FISA. Welcome the terms U.S. Person and changes to internal collection and surveillance of said person.

So in reality the question still remains who is really at fault, authorized all this, wrote most of it and says what can and can't be done? Is it the particular agency using the method? Is it the agency that requested to have the NSA use the method to support their mission? Is a subordinate Army intelligence agency that all powerful? Who really did all this? That's answer is simply the senate. Most recently in 2012 the senate voted to extend The acts for five years, as they do every single time. At the last minute if it is on the news, just like the debt ceiling. That's the short answer.

Throughout its history FISA has been challenged for its constitutionality in several courts. Even a classified special court equivalent to the circuit court of appeals. Each time it has passed muster. With one exception that does not address constitutionality the way you might be thinking as you read. The special review court took issue with FISA "where it might limit the Presidents inherent authority for warrantless searches in the area of foreign intelligence." They determined that FISA is unconstitutional where it might encroach on the President's existing constitutional power. I know, shocker for both sides of the fence.

Now it has been said quite a bit about this connection a person must have contact with an overseas terrorist to be monitored. That's a jumbled misnomer at best. The president has mentioned words to that affect, as have others. However, whether the public realizes it or not they were speaking specifically to the individual program that regards the specific question at that time. There are at least three programs I know of for sure that this NSA media coverage falls under, all with different purvue as they are all different. Some parts of some programs sometimes don't require warrants or this connection as it is commonly understood.That's why there is an ammendment regarding non state sponsored terrorist and the lone wolf provision.

As a side bar, I don't care for the administration or many of these surveillance methods either.

And breath... Break. c(_) Mmmm coffee

Discuss
edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: Typos, the other white meat
edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: (no reason given)



+10 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Legal, does not equal Moral.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bonecrusher321
 





I find it interesting the belief of how conducting operations in accordance with law for over 35 years equates rogue, over reaching, to powerful yada yada yada.


Were the NSA conducting operations in accordance with the law. Then yes there wouldn't be a problem.

However theres plenty of news stories where the nsa has broken the law.

This one in particular where the NSA passed info to the DEA to prosecute a drug case

www.nbcnews.com...

And that's just one case. Who knows how many more there may be.

Please comment on this.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Amen Brother...Amen.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

amazing
reply to post by benrl
 


Amen Brother...Amen.


Slavery,
Women Suffrage,
Japanese interment,


I could go on and on.

Legality has proven a poor measure of morality in this country,

We are obligated to protest LAWS we view as Amoral.

The 4th is there for a reason, and now it might as well be toilet paper for all our Representatives are concerned.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



The whole world could use some morality. Don't single out America, there plenty of shame to go around.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by benrl
 



The whole world could use some morality. Don't single out America, there plenty of shame to go around.


The world is not my responsibility.

As a citizen of a Representative republic, IT is my duty to worry and advocate for my nation.

I take my duty as a Citizen seriously.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 





The world is not my responsibility. 

As a citizen of a Representative republic, IT is my duty to worry and advocate for my nation. 

I take my duty as a Citizen seriously.



Roger that.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
All i have to say is that the constitution trumps all other laws. The fourth amendment is there for a reason, and any laws made to supersede it are not only wrong, they are treasonous.

Unfortunately, most people look at laws as a singular thing, and miss the overall picture.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


By no means is any governmental body, organization or corporation without impropriety of some kind. I am not ignorant to the fact that each intelligence agency has conducted questionable activities, er certain offices or individuals not the whole building.

While my thread is directed towards current events regarding NSA surveillance i do have a response for you.

EO 13470 outlines the goals, direction, duties and responsibilities of USI. For the NSA it states "(1) Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions;" and "(5) Provide signals intelligence support for national and departmental requirements and for the conduct of military operations;"

These two pieces are important. It clarifies that the NSA is by no means limited to foreign intelligence collection. National and departmental missions are the key though. This is regarding what is called intelligence requirements. And drugs fall in that. But where does that fit the DEA in? Well how many of the 16 agencies can you name off the top of your head? I'll help you out, the DEA is one of them. Why? Because drugs come from places where terrorist grow, operate and often funded by drug money. Such as the FARC in Columbia or the obvious opium fields of poppy land where are troops are deployed. What about this secret passing of intelligence? Well its secret for one but all agencies are on a mandatory share play nice together order. Also intelligence reports, depending on type, are kept on only a handful of systems that most agencies have access to. That's how we disseminate. The "passing" isn't agent bob calling agent john, it's all on a database. Hard to believe? Shouldn't be, we commonly pass on most reports to canada, Australian and Great Britain. Very few things are NOFORN, meaning no foreign.

Yes, often how investigations begin are concealed as that beginning may relate to other ongoing investigations. Yes if agent bob knew he did something wrong I'm sure he'd hide it too. And by no means are sources ever named even in court. A court order doesn't even have the power to make you, believe it or not. Not just for reasons of national security but you'll blow their cover, no longer have an asset who can be seen with the cover agent and in most cases would likely be killed by their own. There is no barrier between foreign intelligence and the criminal process as claimed, this is why the FBI is included in everything and is the front runner for U.S. Counterintelligence. I don't train them down in Fredericksburg because I think their training is crap. IMHO, but we have a history

Now do some agents or personnel do some illegal things sometimes whether knowingly or unknowingly? Absolutely, I've seen it. And I don't deny that while I answered to this point most of the article this case could just as easily be nefarious in nature. However regular everyday congressman have no idea how this world works. Only the select two committees within congress actually are read on to those programs and have an understanding of acts and laws relating. No one person can know everything and I doubt those congressman have understandings about a lot of laws, just like all of us.

What does bother me though about the article is possible fabrication of evidence and recreating the trail in an unlawful manner. If that's true I'm sure a high five, in the face, with a chair is coming. But that's for the DOJ to figure out.

Apologies for any typos




edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2014211 by bonecrusher321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bonecrusher321
 


I look forward to wednesday then...

So the Senate is to blame here? Okay...then why is the change of guard not working? Who keeps allowing these things to continue unchecked? We can blame the senate as a whole, but the people have been voted in and out and changed for the kast 35 years as well. Which begs another question...who keeps forcing our senate to continue this mutiny?

There is something more to this, it's beyond congress...follow the money.

Excellent thread!

*S&F*





posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

benrl

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by benrl
 



The whole world could use some morality. Don't single out America, there plenty of shame to go around.


The world is not my responsibility.

As a citizen of a Representative republic, IT is my duty to worry and advocate for my nation.

I take my duty as a Citizen seriously.




It would be irresponsible not to keep an eye on the rest of the world would it not? Should we not care about starving children in Africa? Should we have ignored Iraq invading Kuwait? Should we ignore Fukushima?
I'm not saying we should try to run the whole world but we can't bury our heads in the sand either. You mentioned slavery and suffrage, don't these things still exist?
Standards of human rights should not stop at a border.
edit on 11-2-2014 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Back in the 60s when it was first addressed and for the next 30 or so years your point was very true. Even for reasons of national security the fourth applied and surveillance couldn't happen. If you reference the acts in my OP and do some looking you'll find that this is no longer the case in the post FISA era as determined by the courts, even the supreme one. If the attorney general approves of a wiretap that requires a warrant and the connection can be shown that the surveillance regards an operational involving foreign intelligence it has been determined not to violate the fourth amendment, so long as the court agrees and approves a warrant. If it is warrantless then its a violation of the ammendment



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Agreed



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I believe legal to the precise letter of the law, as written by politicians is one thing.

Legal in the spirit of the law and of the United States Constitution is quite another.


They are legal, yes. They'd already be out of business with the top leadership of the agency if that wasn't the case. To the letter...yes. They are.

To the spirit of the law and our Constitution? Nowhere remotely close on a bet. The NSA has done more to turn that Constitution into low grade toilet paper than any other single agency which comes to mind at the moment.


I could probably forgive some mistakes on the technical laws ...if they remained or even tried to remain within the spirit of it. However they laugh at our complaints even as they continue to collect like the largest hoover vacuum cleaner man has ever seen.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

bonecrusher321
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Back in the 60s when it was first addressed and for the next 30 or so years your point was very true. Even for reasons of national security the fourth applied and surveillance couldn't happen. If you reference the acts in my OP and do some looking you'll find that this is no longer the case in the post FISA era as determined by the courts, even the supreme one. If the attorney general approves of a wiretap that requires a warrant and the connection can be shown that the surveillance regards an operational involving foreign intelligence it has been determined not to violate the fourth amendment, so long as the court agrees and approves a warrant. If it is warrantless then its a violation of the ammendment
Prime example of my point. You accept that these 'acts' can supersede the constitution.

Just because we have allowed it to happen, doesnt make it constitutional.

Again, to say that anything supersedes the constitution is treasonous.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
We the people decide what we're willing to tolerate in a society.

We made this country, we pay the bills, and we should be the only ones deciding in which direction it heads.

When we decide we don't want our privacy invaded, our employees in the government should listen. When they refuse, it becomes an act of treason against the people, the rightful owners of America.

The days when this government could ride roughshod over an uninformed electorate are OVER.

End of story.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The single issue I have with data collection is the sale of said info. We all know it is happening already. Why? Because congress already spent all their money and need a new revenue source. What is the solution? Simple...charge money for the metadata on every single person in order to raise revenues for themselves. Insurance companies, credit card companies, or basically any lobbyists in DC. That is how they will get their money. May sound far fetched...but I bet it's accurate.

Should they be doing it to begin with? Hell no! But unfortunately it already takes place and they blatantly build new data storage centers at our costs, while laughing behind closed doors about why we can't....and won't...stop them.

It is a crock of bull excrement that everyone should take notice for and shut down themselves. We could stop this as a nation by going back to our roots of living without their technology....but no one wants to give up their credit cards and iphones.






posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bonecrusher321
 


btw. I'm sure you will find this article of interest if you haven't read it already.


pando.com...

But one of the big take aways from that time and today is. That even with all this surveillance. The NSA still has a hard time stopping terrorist attacks or divining world events.

It's a huge waste of money until they can prove otherwise. And they won't because it's all secret.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Well to varying degrees these orders, policies, acts, conventions, laws etcetera change often, more than could be explained. But yes, those who make the law and decide what is okay after consulting with courts attorneys etc are to blame and that is the senate in this case. My belief is that if this was as knowledgeably understood by average joe as much as it is widely broadcasted that it would become a bigger topic then say, the debt ceiling in an election. Nobody is forced. Like any other law or act a select few work on it and understand and blah blah another fault in the system.

My thoughts on the $$ is congress dishes it out after they say what everyone can haven but it comes from us in theory or in reality from the federal reserve loans. There's obviously other forums for that conversation but I all the FEDs questionable activity I don't think influencing foreign surveillance for coke distribution, how far this guy is on the bomb or does that country have working utilities matter to them. They just want countries to pay them ridiculous rates on money they loan that never existed in the first place. That's my opinion but finding out the individuals names in this case would likely be better located following the paper trail not the money trail.






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join