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.

 

Obama asks court to INCREASE the time the NSA can hold phone records

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
www.zerohedge.com...





The Obama administration has asked a special court for approval to hold onto National Security Agency phone records for a longer period–an unintended consequence of lawsuits seeking to stop the phone-surveillance program.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Justice Department was considering such a move, which would end up expanding the controversial phone records database by not deleting older call records.

Under the current system, the database is purged of phone records more than five years old. The Justice Department, in a filing made public Wednesday, said it needs to hold onto the older records as evidence in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others.

Under the proposal made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the older data would continue to be held, but NSA analysts would not be allowed to search it.


Ok, Obama defenders how do you defend this one less than 30 days after he said he'd reform the NSA?

We have truly entered a dictatorship, complete with 1984 (the book) style double speak.

Can anyone truly say we are no longer in a dictatorship? Where the elected official can say one thing and then do whatever the he-- he wants. Where the President makes laws because he can't get congress to write the laws he wants, and so unconstitutionally writes and decree's his own. Where the President and family live higher on the hog than the Queen of England? (don't ask me to prove it, look it up for yourself, it is out there) Where the first lady buys a dress that costs more than what many full time workers make.

These are perilous times, and if you still support all these illegal actions, are you willing to live with the same actions if a Tea Party president becomes President? If not, then you need to speak up and send a message to congress and the white house.

Do you support a government program that is only going to benefit people of one race and exclude all others? Isn't that illegal? The latest brainchild of our dictator does just that - see other threads about the mentoring program exclusively for black people.

Wake up people, what is going on?




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Sounds like if they destroy the records they will be destroying evidence in ongoing litigation. Perhaps in this case it is a (court) procedural issue rather than presidential overreach...



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


Why are you surprised?

Since when have the words that come out of his mouth actually correlate with his actions?

What a damn shame that responsible parents try to teach their children that "actions speak louder than words" and we have government officials that are teaching them quite the opposite!



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Elton
Sounds like if they destroy the records they will be destroying evidence in ongoing litigation. Perhaps in this case it is a (court) procedural issue rather than presidential overreach...


Ok, I see what you are saying, but since when has Obama asked for more surveillance for a short term "good" reason and the surveillance did not become permanent. This is a tactic. Once the extension is granted, Obama will keep it and then later ask for a further and then further extension for another "good" reason. This is a pattern he has exhibited with his
"truths" that stretch into lies - like if you like your health plan you can keep it - if you like your Doctor you can keep him/her - then his mouthpiece Pelosi says - oh this is in the bill, but let's pass it to find out for sure.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
This doesn't mean MORE surveillance, it just means they will hold onto it longer. Like another post said it's most likely a legal procedure since they have ongoing litigation.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

rangerdanger
This doesn't mean MORE surveillance, it just means they will hold onto it longer. Like another post said it's most likely a legal procedure since they have ongoing litigation.


That or they are having a data processing back log, and need to make sure they pull all the juiciest goss... I mean intelligence from what they have.

Information is power, once held, no government would throw it away.
edit on 26-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


This could be interesting...

The request to hold records longer might be a possible back door approach to change the law. if the court agrees, will the request be just for this one incident or will it allow the government to apply the change to anything / everything related to the NSA surveillance stuff.

Ironic really... This administration goes out of its way to prevent a Bin ladin photo from being released yet has no qualms about screwing over its own citizens.

I really wish Congress would get off their butts and impeach Obama.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

rangerdanger
This doesn't mean MORE surveillance, it just means they will hold onto it longer. Like another post said it's most likely a legal procedure since they have ongoing litigation.





I am sorry but anyone who defends this crap is just plain nuts. We do not even know what they are truly doing.



You know you are screwed when they no longer try and hide it and want to make it all legal like. And yet we still see the fools saying it is not that bad. We have no idea how bad it is until they try to make it legal.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
''as evidence in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union''

Technically, they did bring about the lawsuits and by the letter of the law they cannot destroy the evidence for this lawsuit.

also, all you Obama phobics do realize it was Bush's government that started this program, right?
And you do realize that the next republican, democratic, female, male, black, white president for decades to come will never do anything to stop it?

But I like your grasp on the situation.

Blame OBAMA, because he actually runs the government.. right?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Agit8dChop
Blame OBAMA, because he actually runs the government.. right?


The program was not as in-depth as it is now. the same held for the Fast and Furious scandal for Obama.

Secondly I find it Ironic that people still want to blame Bush for Obamas actions. His presidency has 2 years left and all he does is blame others. He campaigned on transparency and government accountability, and to date we never got either one of those.

Finally, there were 2 years where the Democrats controlled 2 out of 3 branches of government. they had the perfect window to get their agenda pushed and passed, yet they failed to do so. Obama could have shut Gitmo down, he could have withdrawn all troops from Afghanistan / Iraq, he could have passed legislation to place curbs on NSA / CIa programs yet failed to do so.

Is Obama to blame? absolutely.

Why?

Because he was elected President.

When you fire the old and bring in the new the goal is to fix the issues. Obama has failed to do any of that. During the elections, people hated on Sara Palin. Those people overlooked / ignored the fact that she has more executive experience than McCain as well as Obama.

Finally its been one scandal after another with this administration. If they cant investigate normal crimes why should they be given more cover by the courts for actions that are pretty much illegal?

This is Obamas mess... from start to finish.

This administration does not know what the letter of the law is.

Fast and Furious
IRS tax scandal
use of Executive orders to nullify the constitution
etc...

I find it highly unlikely the Obama administration is going to all of a sudden comply with the law. Why ask to keep these records while at the same time invoking executive privilege for the other lawsuits?

Impeach Obama...
Impeach his cabinet...
File criminal charges.
edit on 27-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Agit8dChop
''as evidence in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union''

Technically, they did bring about the lawsuits and by the letter of the law they cannot destroy the evidence for this lawsuit.

also, all you Obama phobics do realize it was Bush's government that started this program, right?
And you do realize that the next republican, democratic, female, male, black, white president for decades to come will never do anything to stop it?

But I like your grasp on the situation.

Blame OBAMA, because he actually runs the government.. right?


Uh Duh

He has run the government for 6 years and HAS the POWER to stop anything Bush did, but he hasn't has he?

No he has just amassed more power for himself through czars who are not accountable to the people, and regulations that bypass elected officials, and presidential edicts that are blatantly unconstitutional.

Blaming Bush is so passe as to be laughable especially when in the first years he could have undone absolutely everything Bush did with both houses of congress and the presidency, but he didn't.

He now controls half the branches of the government, the Senate, half the Supreme Court, and the Presidency and has much more power than you think. To blame Bush now is to blame the incompetence of Obama to undo whatever you think Bush did.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
So you all would prefer that the gov't destroys all the evidence of its transgressions of liberty?

That they just toss out the evidence of their draconian programs?

If they were tossing out stuff at the 5 year mark and our cases were from 7 years ago then they'd look as clean as a preacher's sheets. We NEED the trail of proof. If we lose this, the only other area would be the tax record to prove # of folks paid but we'd then be unable to 'prove' the transgressions as it would simply show who was paid and not what they were paid for.

Of course will they adhere to the "not searching" the older than 5 years old data is another discussion.


Derek



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
People still to this day try to justify all that Obama has done with, "his heart is in the right place, he is just trying to do good but D.C. won't let him".

People turned on Bush much faster than they are turning on Obama. I wish we could hold all elected officials to the same standards and not by how many celebrities they have on speed dial.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join