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

reply to post by captaintyinknots


No I don't and didn't admit they supersede the constitution. I said the court system determined they do not violate the law of the constitution. Yes for that back in the 60s time the courts said it was a violation, so the Act at that time said no, no not authorized. Did it still happen under the table? I wasn't there but it was the 60s, I think that says yes it did in some cases

bonecrusher321
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No I don't and didn't admit they supersede the constitution. I said the court system determined they do not violate the law of the constitution. Yes for that back in the 60s time the courts said it was a violation, so the Act at that time said no, no not authorized. Did it still happen under the table? I wasn't there but it was the 60s, I think that says yes it did in some cases

You accept that the court has the right to supersede the constitution. It doesnt (though we allow it to). Anything else is moot. Any law made which supersedes the constitution is treasonous. Thats my point. As a people, we have accepted these things. That doesnt make them constitutional.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You may hear a lot about the NSA but I assure you that your toilet paper comment applies to old faithful, the CIA.

reply to post by bonecrusher321


I appreciate that you have an interest here in defending the actions of the National Security Agency, and that works. Different strokes for different folks and whatever makes ya happy. At the same time, there are many who detest the agency you're defending and aren't poorly informed or without very solid reasons.

We all have our opinions.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I thought my last comment clarified but apparently not. I am not defending anything, only showing that their actions being discussed currently in the media are legal. Although I recognize why some may choose to view me that way. Like I said, I don't like a lot of it and as many have shared I agree that there is a degree of immorality that will somewhat vary from person to person. I just threw my hat in the ring since I have direct knowledge of how these processes work and a background in USI

reply to post by bonecrusher321


It can be difficult to know what truly goes on behind closed doors.
Especially when the doors are locked by the words National Security.
The rapid advance of technology has outpaced the laws and moral
interpretations of the laws.
While I am all for protecting the security of this Nation.
I am uncomfortable with the potential to warrantlessly
spy on every single citizen.
One has to wonder if massive data mining and storage is not
only done because it can be done, but also if it is a method for justifying
a budget.

Good Thread....S&F

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71


It is the Height of ignorance and arrogance to assume to fix your neighbors house while yours is in shambles,

Those matters should only be this nations purview when they directly take a toll on its citizenry, no more, no less.

Anyone who has studied history know that Isolationism is not a good end in and of itself (NK), and I get that, but this thought of global responsibility is the exact far end of that spectrum.

On one side, you have NK, and on the other you have Team America the World Police.

BOTH are wrong, and a result of the death of compromise (people unwilling to bend, who go all or nothing) and the polarization of the two sides in today's political environment.

We can take care of those at home, while still enabling Moral and ethical aid abroad.

But that is the farthest thing from what is currently happening in the US.

Isolationism helped lead to the WWs, and in a response we went the complete opposite way to hyper interventionism, whats needed is a middle ground.

We need to guarantee our own "freedoms" before we seek to export them.

reply to post by bonecrusher321


I am sorry.. You are wrong . No matter what "legal justifications" you spew out you are dead wrong. The Bush administration had a legal justification for torture. It does not make it right.. It does not make it legal. Just as in this case. You can twist the law any way your fascist mind wants it does not make it legal or moral. The fourth admendment clearly spells out what the founding fathers had in mind. You can pack the Supreme Court with all your Neo con allies but the fact is in the end you will regret the side you took. The founding fathers have rolled over in their graves and asked for asylum to other countries. They did not want a police state. If you had ever read history you would be aware of their intentions. You are wrong!!! I don't care what legal crap you spew out. Lying to congress as Clapper and Alexander did is wrong and against the law just as unjustified spying on American Citizens is. Lying again and again to FISA courts is against the law. You are completely misguided.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


We pay big dollars for intelligence. It is not collected for free. Most of the sources i dealt with were paid anywhere from a Jackson to not uncommonly 30-50 grand. A good friend of mine paid out around 400,000 in a year during a military operation. Those are very common numbers and in some parts of the world very Small.

reply to post by GArnold


I would suggest rereading the fourth ammendment. It has nothing to do with surveillance and data collection. It regards unreasonable search and seizure (reasonable searches as defined by law do not require warrants) and requires warrants to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Which is determined by lawyers judges at every level, not the parties requesting or using the warrants. No different than your local police.

The Supreme Court decision in United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause. Three United States Courts of Appeals have recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause, but tied it to certain requirements. The exception to the Fourth Amendment was formally recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in its 2008 In re Directives decision.The lower court held that, "a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Despite the foregoing citation the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures nonetheless apply to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because, "a person's private communications are akin to personal papers."To protect the telecommunication carriers cooperating with the US government from legal action, the Congress passed a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to permit this type of surveillance.

As previously provided everything is justified by law , case law and court decisions as is every other law in this country and just like every other level of warranting search and seizure is obtained. Whether or not you and I and anyone else thinks its immoral or should be changed doesn't make it illegal just because we don't like it. But I understand why some believe in the idea.

reply to post by bonecrusher321


You are one of the smuggest aholes I have ever seen here in like 7 years. I have read the 4th more than a 100 times. A illegal search is exactly what this is. You cannot blanket search everyone. As I said have you ever read history whatsoever? The consititution was supposed to be interpretered as what the founding founders wanted. They exactly did not want a police state with govt agencies having free reign to do whatever they please. Keep spewing your legal crap. You are still wrong and this is not legal or moral. Just as enhanced interrogation was not legal or moral. You are a puppet. Fool. You are on the wrong side of history and you will be exposed eventually. Just as the Nazis were. Keep up the BS. There is a reason you have only 5 stars or flags. You are simply wrong. No matter what you delusion ally post you are wrong. This will not end well for you. Be it one year or 30. As I said keep up spreading the lies and misinformation it makes you look good.

How accurate is this:

After 9-1-1 the NSA changed because it included all American's in the fight on terror (we were drafted). It was then that the agencies opened up communication with one another. So while the NSA may have been active before, for National security purposes, they were not as integrated with other agencies (as open), as they are now. Because of the freedom to communicate with other agencies it's made their reach much broader - simply by the nature of transparency between agencies under the DOD.


Forgot to add - so this changes the constitutionality of it. They are still operating under the old definition but the agency has changed enough to make the nature of it entirely different (altered objectives).

reply to post by Dianec


Very accurate, mostly. Transparency doesn't equate a further reach (perhaps we think of reach differently). It means easier access to what the other guy knows. Easier because he has to give it to you. As a subordinate DOD agency in a support role in expansion of transparency would have been very limited in regard to sharing their own information as they naturally share by virtue of supporting other organizations. The ability to request and receive information from others would be greatly increased in theory but in reality had little effect in the NSA. This is because in order to support an operation you have to be given the information necessary to conduct the operation. In the event the NSA would require more they would simply ask. The supported agency would, in all likely hood, concede to the greatest degree because they need the NSA's support (referencing the time prior to transparency). I don't believe Transparency changed constitutionality. The law mandated the transparency. Your initial points are accurate and in line with the changes to Acts, policy, laws and directives.

The NSA alone with independent broad oversight and clear focus and direction would not be a problem. But in an inherently corrupt, agenda driven government the above is impossible.

They lost the plot over the decades and have done more to facilitate the degradation of freedom and liberty. They have become the godlike eyes and ears of "big brother" ...

From another thread..

ausername
When an agency can provide very real godlike powers over people to a government administration, those powers become impossible to remove.

The NSA can find anything on anyone anywhere any time and for any reason.

Think about the implications of a government having that kind of power, think of how it can be used to corrupt, coerce, extort, silence and control..

They will do anything, ANYTHING, to protect and retain those capabilities and powers they provide them.

bonecrusher321
reply to post by GArnold

 

I would suggest rereading the fourth ammendment. It has nothing to do with surveillance and data collection.

The Supreme Court decision in United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause.
- and then, shocker -
The exception to the Fourth Amendment was formally recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in its 2008 In re Directives decision.

As previously provided everything is justified by law

The Supreme Court makes mistakes as so obviously presented here. Then the NSA exploits those mistakes and claims "everything is justified by law!" And then they get people to support those mistakes they've exploited. Sad for America.

Here's my take and it's pretty simple. No courts supreme or otherwise have the power to override the constitution. People who support this method of overriding the constitution (current NSA and supporters) are the real terrorists.

reply to post by bonecrusher321


Thank you for your feedback. Because laws were made to make the separate branches more transparent with one another it is legal and therefore constitutional. I'm curious - do you think if we were pre NSA - I.E. - these surveillance techniques were developed today - and they jumped straight to where we are today with the reach of this surveillance - would it be constitutional? Meaning - if it had not been a gradual process would your view be the same? I hope that makes sense.

reply to post by bonecrusher321


Well, it certainly adds up.
Keep your Ice Axe Sharp,
Wildmanimal

reply to post by bonecrusher321


I have thought about your reply.
Covert acquisition of information for a price
is older than Judas himself.
That is a given.
This fact however, is not compatible with widespread data mining
of The Very Citizens who pay for an Agency's Budget.
The American People are certainly troubled with The Federal Government,
but clearly, they are not at war.
Therefore, again, I find it difficult to justify widespread data mining of
Taxpaying American Citizens.

My ice axe is sharp. I keep it that way during these blizzard conditions.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


I think I follow. I was just trying to give an idea about funds. We tens of millions annually to sources. Some are given six and seven digit amounts for one piece of intel

You are unpopular for a very good reason. You support a corrupt system, of perverts who love to spy on everyone. We have no more privacey, and you just dont care.

I dont need to read your post either to know that either A) You are a very dumb person (no offense) B) You are just making this post to just be unpopular or C) Both.

So if its neither of those, why the hell would you support something that is taking our rights away?

I dont want to sift through your BS post of factoids either, because its probably filled with a buch of propaganda you were fed.

Funny thing is, I put myself in other peoples shoes as well, but supporting the NSA, or anything like it that digs in your personal life, and takes your freedom away for get it. If you fully support them, then get out of my country because you are a real terrorist.