U.S. Surveillance Court Says Collection of Telephone Data Lawful

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

U.S. surveillance court says collection of telephone data lawful

Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:00pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government's massive collection of daily telephone call data does not violate Americans' privacy rights and is lawful despite the uproar that followed its disclosure in June, a U.S. surveillance court has ruled.

In an opinion dated August 29 and released on Tuesday, Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wrote that the court was mindful of recent disclosures about the database but continued to believe it was within the law.

(Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by David Brunnstrom)


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98G16R20130917

[bowens43]

1. the court is wrong....

[ConcernedCanuk]

33. That's what Julia Roberts said in 'The Pelican Brief'

.
.
.

and she was correct.

Making a LAW, does not make it right.

We the people know that.

Lawmakers don't care;

we know that too . .

(sigh)

CC

[Warren Stupidity]

2. well that settles that. See, for example, Dred Scott.

But I digress, what does the op think of this decision?

[Hissyspit]

18. Jeez, Warren. What do you think I think?

But if you really want to know, see post #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, etc.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. How would I know?

[Hissyspit]

34. My entire decade history of posting here?

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I don't keep scorecards. I forget who is on which team.

Sorry. I assume you think the decision was awful, but I no longer take anything for granted here, so I just ask instead.

[Hissyspit]

38. O.k. Fair enough.

[another_liberal]

3. The Surveillance Court would say that, wouldn't it?

The crooked, lying bastards' jobs depend on them doing so, of course they would say it perfectly legal. Hell, they would say anything else the NSA wants to do is legal also, as long as saying so will cover their crooked lying asses!

[atreides1]

7. Yes it would say that!

They're federal judges...lifetime appointments, no fear of losing their jobs!

But remember that John Roberts hand picks these slime...and we all know how much of a moderate he is!

[christx30]

11. Remember that the

next time someone complains about a decision that you agree with. "Federal judges... lifetime appointments."

Just because a court says something is legal and good and wonderful, doesn't mean that it actually is.

[another_liberal]

13. ". . . no fear of losing their jobs!"

Perhaps you are right about that, though I had not known they were "lifetime appointments," like Supreme Court Justices. Not all Federal Judges are.

Nevertheless, if they got on that Court it was because they could be counted on to cover their asses so as to not let Congress have a reason to change the rules of the game. They are assuredly not going to admit anything the NSA has done has been in any way illegal or even questionably unconstitutional. Rocking the boat like that could lead to their losing lifetime appointments or even a total replacement of their court with a different kind of oversight, something a bit more representative of the will of the people (instead of the will of the snoops alone).

[24601]

19. Federal District Court, Circuit Appellate Judges and Supreme Court Justices may serve for life

if they so choose unless removed via the impeachment process.

Given that eight federal officers (six of them judges) have been removed via House impeachment & Senate conviction, federal judges aren't really grousing fearful of losing their jobs.

[another_liberal]

24. Mores the pity.

In my opinion.

[dickthegrouch]

25. What does it take to impeach such stupid idiots? /nt

[Uncle Joe]

31. In related news, the DEA believes cannabis should be illegal. n/t

[another_liberal]

42. Yeah, who would have seen that one coming?

(sigh)

[atreides1]

4. The headline should read:

"FISA Court still on it's knees and swallowing...something that it does best"

[msongs]

5. The pimp says its prostitutes are legal. there's a shocker for ya nt

[jsr]

9. Yep.

[Autumn]

6. U.S. surveillance court says collection of telephone data lawful

Would they have found it any other way? Of course not. U.S. surveillance court

[SamKnause]

8. Spying

I disagree, but I am not surprised by the decision.

[hobbit709]

10. Like they would say anything else.

[truebrit71]

12. Right?

[mindwalker_i]

14. This just adds to the perception that the government is lying and dishonest

After Bush/Cheney lied us into war, the government's credability for providing reasons and data on why we should go to war took a huge hit. As a consequence, Obama's "intelligence" on Syria was taken more skeptically than i would have been otherwise. With the surveilance, trust in the government is even lower. Bush/Cheney did the major damage, but allowing the programs to continue definitely hasn't helped. Obama is shooting himself in the foot by continuing to support it.

[Octafish]

15. John Roberts, BFEE

John Roberts earned his Sgt. Pepper stripes as an Iran-Contra cover-up artiste.



The smarmy “Justice” John Roberts wasn’t around for the 5-4 decision that installed pretzeldent Junior George W Bush 43 into the Oval Office. The vote-suppressor supreme “Justice” William Rehnquist was at the top of that legal heap back in 2001.

But, if it wasn’t for young John Roberts workin’ his legal magic ‘n’ all back in 1986, it’s quite possible there never would have been a President Poppy George Herbert Walker Bush 41 in the first place.

The reason: John Roberts helped keep Pruneface Ronald Reagan from being impeached and the secret government arms-for-hostages Boland Amendment runaround ringleader Poppy Bush out of prison during Iran-Contra.

JR lawyered iran contra

The Smoking Gun: John Roberts "Lawyered" the Iran-Contra Scandal

Bob Fertik
Democrats.com
August 25, 2005

EXCERPT...

One file withheld, regarding the Iran-contra affair, was a draft memo from Roberts to his bosses with the heading "re: establishment of NHAO" -- referring to the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office.

The office was one of the ways the Reagan administration got around what were known as the Boland amendments, which prohibited U.S. intelligence agencies from spending money to overthrow the Sandinistas. The office was a way the administration could get funds to the contras for nonmilitary purposes, but once there the money was used for all sorts of things.

In other words, John Roberts "lawyered" the Iran-Contra Scandal - one of the worst scandals in American history.

Now we know why Karl Rove is scrubbing Roberts' files!!!

CONTINUED…

http://www.democrats.com/roberts-iran-contra

Why does that matter? Well, Iran-Contra was treason of the highest order. Not only did the Executive circumvent Congress in carrying out its various warmongering treasons in the name of fighting godless communism, they were trading arms with the terrorists who had killed 240 United States Marines, 18 Navy and 3 Army personnel at the Beirut airport in 1983.

Firewall: Inside the Iran-Contra Cover-up

By Robert Parry
1995

EXCERPT…

Those combined interests likely will lead to very few favorable reviews of a new book by a man who put himself in the way of that cover-up -- Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh. In a remarkable new book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up, Walsh details his six-year battle to break through the "firewall" that White House officials built around President Reagan and Vice President Bush after the Iran-contra scandal exploded in November 1986.

For Walsh, a lifelong Republican who shared the foreign policy views of the Reagan administration, the Iran-contra experience was a life-changing one, as his investigation penetrated one wall of lies only to be confronted with another and another -- and not just lies from Oliver North and his cohorts but lies from nearly every senior administration official who spoke with investigators.

According to Firewall, the cover-up conspiracy took formal shape at a meeting of Reagan and his top advisers in the Situation Room at the White House on Nov. 24, 1986. The meeting's principal point of concern was how to handle the troublesome fact that Reagan had approved illegal arms sales to Iran in fall 1985, before any covert-action finding had been signed. The act was a clear felony -- a violation of the Arms Export Control Act -- and possibly an impeachable offense.

SNIP…

&quot White House chief of staff Don) Regan, who had heard McFarlane inform the president and who had heard the president admit to Shultz that he knew of the shipment of Hawk (anti-aircraft) missiles, said nothing. Shultz and (Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger, who had protested the shipment before it took place, said nothing. (Vice President George) Bush, who had been told of the shipment in advance by McFarlane, said nothing. Casey, who (had) requested that the president sign the retroactive finding to authorize the CIA-facilitated delivery, said nothing. (NSC adviser John) Poindexter, who had torn up the finding, said nothing. Meese asked whether anyone knew anything else that hadn't been revealed. No one spoke."

CONTINUED…

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story34.html

These are no mere gangsters. They are mass murderers dealing with mass murderers to advance their aims. And John Roberts let them get away with their corruptions and treasons.

Roberts & the 'Apex of Presidential Power'

By Nat Parry
September 6, 2005

EXCERPT...

In the 1980s, Roberts also provided legal advice to the Reagan administration on how to pick its way around the legal obstacles erected by Congress to limit military and other assistance to the Nicaraguan contra rebels who were fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

SNIP…

Conflict of Interest

Regarding the Hamdan case, Roberts also saw no impropriety in his simultaneous interviewing with senior administration officials for a life-time job on the Supreme Court and his judging of a case in which Bush was a defendant.

On April 1, Roberts was interviewed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who had formulated many of the arguments for the “apex of presidential power,” including Bush’s right to override anti-torture laws.

Other interviews with Roberts were conducted by Vice President Dick Cheney; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; White House legal counsel Harriet Miers; Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove; and Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby.

CONTINUED…

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/090605.html

Oh yeah. "No Poppy" means no one to appoint Associate Just-Us Tony the Fixer Scalia to the court in 1986. And everybody knows, Fangu Tony was da brains behind the 5-4 fiasco...uh ah uh, assisted by the lawyerly John Roberts, of course.

Roberts Gave GOP Advice in 2000 Recount

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, played a role in the chaotic, 36-day period following the disputed 2000 presidential election.

by Gary Fineout and Mary Ellen Klas
Published on Thursday, July 21, 2005 by the Miami Herald

TALLAHASSEE -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.

Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald.

SNIP...

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat, seized on Roberts' participation in the 2000 recount and suggested it should be grounds for rejecting his nomination. Wexler suggested the nomination ``threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election.

''Judge Roberts worked to ensure that George Bush would become president -- regardless of what the courts might decide,'' Wexler said, relying on news accounts that suggested Roberts gave the governor advice on how the state Legislature could name Bush the winner. ``And now he is being rewarded for that partisan service by being appointed to the nation's highest court.''

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0721-07.htm

Small world. And very, very bad.

The Lost Opportunity of Iran-Contra

Special Report: A quarter century ago with the breaking of the Iran-Contra scandal, the United States had a chance to step back from its march toward Empire and to demand accountability for White House crimes. But instead a powerful cover-up prevailed, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews
December 1, 2011

EXCERPT...

Walsh finally relented and agreed to shut down his investigation, meaning that one of the key lessons derived from Iran-Contra was that a determined cover-up of a national security scandal, backed by a powerful media apparatus and aggressive political allies, can work.

In the early 1990s when I interviewed the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s longtime Democratic chief counsel Spencer Oliver, he put Iran-Contra in exactly that historical place, as the polar opposite of Watergate when Richard Nixon’s abuses of power had real consequences, including Nixon’s forced resignation and prison terms for many of his subordinates.

“What [the Republicans] learned from Watergate,” Oliver said, “was not ‘don’t do it,’ but ‘cover it up more effectively.’ They have learned that they have to frustrate congressional oversight and press scrutiny in a way that will avoid another major scandal.”

The consequences of the failed Iran-Contra investigations have been long-lasting and profound. Not only did George H.W. Bush manage to get elected president in 1988 under the false claim that he had been “out of the loop” on the scandal, but the failure to hold him accountable in 1993 opened the door to the White House eight years later for his son, George W. Bush.

George W. Bush’s imperial presidency (and its costly “war on terror”) would have been virtually unthinkable if the full truth had been known about George H.W. Bush regarding Iran-Contra. Nor would it have been likely that the Republicans could have succeeded in elevating Ronald Reagan to his present iconic status.

CONTINUED...

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/01/the-lost-opportunity-of-iran-contra/

For all that, dealing with terrorists and going around the Congressional ban on dealing death on innocent people in Nicaragua, they all belong in the slammer for life.

Instead, John Roberts gets to head the nation’s highest court in the land for life and makes certain the Police State can spy on whomever he says they can. Nice.

[easychoice]

22. prison is too good for them.

[Octafish]

44. Thanks to Ford forgiving Nixon, they all avoided it.

Thanks to Poppy forgiving Weinberger, the same crowd avoided it again.

Thank you for the heads-up on the George Carlin "routine." Truth that holds true from Pruneface to the present day: "They're against street crime as long as it's not Wall Street."

An amazing human being and a great citizen of the United States, that guy was able to put more truth into a speech than any politician I've heard speak -- in person, one-on-one, or on tee vee to millions. I miss him every day.

LOL! I tried to respond several times during his routine, forgetting that in doing so I'd lose the YouTube link. Thank you, easychoice!

[easychoice]

50. They shot Howdy Doody,launched Iran Contra,pardoned Weinburger and

dumped 747 loads of Cocaine on unsuspecting poor people.
Then used drug addiction as an excuse to further imprison and impoverish minorities.
And they got a pass on all of it.
Then they use 9-11 as a blatant excuse to finally,completely suspend our rights to privacy.
They are so paranoid and snoopy they are finding ways to give cel phones to poor people that can't afford them.Of course they aren't trying to snoop on them,they said so!
We are sooo through the looking glass...
Thanks for responding Octafish. I have read everything you have ever posted.

[JDPriestly]

41. Excellent post. Thanks.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

16. Lawful

doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

But I disagree with the lawful label.

[24601]

20. The Courts determine what is lawful and, in intelligence matters, the President and his appointees

direct operations & set priorities.

[Octafish]

43. Not very democratic, especially when done in secret.

Guess who got left out of the Continuity Of Government on 9-11?



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/05/politics/main503014.shtml

[24601]

48. Of Course you know that COG at the time was run by FEMA - not the IC. What you posted was not even

close to the topic which was about legality of the IC actions.

But since you posted it, I read the story. Byrd's office said that they were not briefed. No surprise and no news, they were not in the line of succession. The story said that Byrd was the one Briefed and there was no rebuttal on that point.

When succession happens, the individual assuming the office has the same cabinet and WH staff as the previous president until such time as they remove officials and make new appointments and their nominations are confirmed.

On 9-11, the President remained in office and no one assumed acting president under the 25th Amendment. The VP is not a Deputy Commander in Chief, the Speaker is not an Assistant Commander in Chief and the President Pro Tempore is not the Deputy Assistant Commander in Chief.

[Octafish]

49. Thanks for reading and thanks for the explanation, but that's not my point.

My point is secret government is un-democratic. The point of my post is that the secret courts are part of a secret government that benefits a secret group of people before getting around to helping anyone else, including the general population.

The national emergency on 9-11 shows how lowly the Democratic leadership was held by the Republicans, as no Democrats were informed, let alone evacuated. Same goes for the Intelligence Court, as shown by its membership, all appointees of John Roberts, Republican turd.

Get that?

[24601]

51. A constitutional republic is undemocratic because not everyone votes on everything. I doubt

you can find a pure democracy in any developed country.

[bvar22]

17. I wonder what Joe Biden says about that.

[JDPriestly]

40. This post deserves a thread of its own if it hasn't already had one.

[Posteritatis]

21. "Court whose job depends on this being lawful defines it as lawful" (nt)

[Th1onein]

23. Funny how they release this opinion when so many others are Shhhhh! SECRET!

I'm so disgusted with this shit.

[Ash_F]

26. A Bush appointed Judge says all is well.

Sleep. Sleeeeeeeeeep.

[cantbeserious]

27. Feathering Their Own Bed - What Else Would One Expect

eom

[blkmusclmachine]

28. U.S. Surveillance Court: "Everything they do is lawful. They told us so."

[Tx4obama]

29. Kick n/t

[devils chaplain]

30. We're all "Persons Of Interest" now. n/t

[Hydra]

36. So we're just ignoring the Constitution now?

Social contract = void

I think we've seen this movie before in other places...

[woo me with science]

47. +100000 Thank you for stating it so simply.

That's exactly what they are doing.

[PSPS]

37. The rubber stamp is still working, I see.

[JDPriestly]

39. There will be scandals -- and then it will be determined to be unconstitutional and illegal.

That is if what is left of our democracy lasts long enough. And I'm beginning to wonder whether it will.

Think of the opportunities for self-dealing that having the phone records of the CEOs and other officers of big companies could mean. Thus far, we haven't heard of any overstepping in that respect, but it will eventually happen. Someone will notice some calls and use the information for some clearly illegal purpose. And it won't be just once.

I think about the value that, say, correlating the phone records of the head of state of a South American country with other heads of state around the world -- or even correlating the records of calls of the government's top offices of a country in South America with citizens in the US or elsewhere.

Most people have no idea what kind of information can be obtained just from phone records. You get numbers called. You get the length of call. You can tell whether the call was after the normal workday or during the day. You can tell whether a person repeatedly calls another number. The information you can discover about a person's secret life is incredible, and just from phone records. And if you check who one person calls and then check the calls from each of the numbers that the person you originally checked called, you can find out who tells all to whom. You could identify spies in some careless cases. You could figure out whether people are having affairs, whose kids are having trouble in school, what a person's medical problems are, what their relationships with their family are like. You can tell who their lawyer is, whether they are thinking about getting a divorce or starting a business or having a hair transplant. What you can find out is just incredible. You can tell who has insomnia, who drinks too much, who eats a lot of pizza.

No one cares about these details in your life or mine, but their are individuals whose personal lives might be very important to, say a rival politician or an employer or a prospective employer.

This stuff will be illegal one day even if in theory right now, a large number of courts determine that it's OK. Wait till a congressman realizes that his personal life is in the spotlight. It will happen. It's human nature to be curious and to gossip. Sooner or later this will get someone very important in a lot of trouble.

[Sunlei]

45. The 'telephone company' collects all the data. they just sell/give some of it to the Gov.

[polynomial]

52. Very interesting news Thread

Reading through Octafish post was one of the best real news that exposes the Bush/ Cheney axis of corruption. The real inner core from the Supreme Court legal stuff, inner military on down from my view is way over due for public prosecution and humiliation so much so those families should never participate in American politics ever…if they cannot be prosecuted for treason at least shamed endlessly into oblivion.

As for collection of telephone data digging deeper in another direction a little slant drilling here. To explain my thoughts a book by Kevin Trudeau needs to be introduced with the caveats, a Google to Wikipedia will illustrate his long battle with the government. Trudeau’s book “more Natural “CURES” Revealed, picked up at a flea market. Trying to be neutral about my opinion but open the door to a very significant fact.

One of the interesting bullet points in his book talks about how Americans need to avoid toxins from entering the body. Especially electromagnetic types specifically the cell phone which generates communications at microwave frequencies. These are very near the same frequencies that cook meat in the regular microwave oven. True the power levels are presumed to be a safe potential in the cell phone.

However for over forty years cigarettes early on became politically/ medically/ media approved for decades presumed to be O.K. to smoke didn’t cause cancer. It would be a terrible wound to the industry banking securities besides the way in which America now communicates if it was established that these cell phone micro waves did produce cancer.

Trudeau makes that claim. A watt or two watts of microwave energy is placed at the ear side of the head. Perhaps since the cell phone was introduced at a time only mature well to do could afford such a convenience. I could remember when the first Motorola Micro Tac flip phone came out it cost $1800 for the phone. But it was so cool. But what is considered now is the low cost that gives the capability for very young children to be able to have a cell phone. The micro wave at this young time could be a tragic mistake being covered up.

[bobthedrummer]

53. Fascist, that's FISA k&r

Here's a link to the National Security Archive's Unredacted site
http://nsarchive.wordpress.com

[sammy27932003]

54. Since your are only a rubber-

Stamp I don't believe anything you say.You let the NSA lie to you for five years.They didn't stop the program from 2006.Even though you complained,the DOJ has done nothing.Are you ever going to do anything?How about you do the job you were paid for?