The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   The Whistleblower (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111180)

Rohirrim 06-09-2013 08:00 PM

The Whistleblower
 
"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...r-surveillance

http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/09...dward-snowden/

Rohirrim 06-10-2013 05:51 AM

I may be naive, but I think a massive surveillance apparatus combined with corporate control of government is a bad combination.

Pony Boy 06-10-2013 06:01 AM

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

― George Orwell, 1984

baja 06-10-2013 06:29 AM

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111183

Rohirrim 06-11-2013 07:22 AM

Text of the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

06-11-2013 07:45 AM

Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

Rohirrim 06-11-2013 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Large (Post 3860141)
Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about "...unobstructed Civil Liberties..." It says the government has to have probable cause and a warrant, and not just to seize "...persons, houses, papers, and effects..." but to search them as well.

Rigs11 06-11-2013 08:33 AM

Bush-Era Wiretapping Case Killed Before Reaching Supreme Court
A federal appeals court’s August ruling in which it said the federal government may spy on Americans’ communications without warrants and without fear of being sued won’t be appealed to the Supreme Court, attorneys in the case said Thursday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this summer reversed the first and only case that successfully challenged then-President George W. Bush’s once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program. In December, the San Francisco-based appeals court — the nation’s largest — declined to revisit its decision — making the case ripe for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The appellate decision overturned a lower court decision in which two American attorneys — who were working with the now-defunct al-Haramain Islamic Foundation — were awarded more than $20,000 each in damages and their lawyers $2.5 million in legal fees after a years-long, tortured legal battle where they proved they were spied on without warrants.

Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the two lawyers, said in a telephone interview that he would lose in the Supreme Court with its “current composition.”

“It would be a risky endeavor to take this case to this Supreme Court,” he said.

Eisenberg’s legal strategy means that the appellate court’s decision remains binding only in the 9th Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Had the Supreme Court ruled against Eisenberg, a nationwide precedent would be set.

“At some point down the line, a case could end up in a different circuit that would not be bound by the 9th Circuit ruling,” Eisenberg said. By that time, he said, perhaps a more willing Supreme Court would be sitting.

Eisenberg sued under domestic spying laws Congress adopted in the wake of President Richard M. Nixon’s Watergate scandal. The government appealed their victory, and the appeals court dismissed the suit and reversed the damages.

The appellate court had ruled that when Congress wrote the law regulating eavesdropping on Americans and spies, it never waived sovereign immunity in the section prohibiting the targeting Americans without warrants. That means Congress did not allow for aggrieved Americans to sue the government, even if their constitutional rights were violated by the United States breaching its own wiretapping laws.

Congress authorized Bush’s spy program in 2008, five years after the illegal wiretapping involved in this case. Last week, Congress reauthorized it for another five years.

The Bush spy program was first disclosed by The New York Times in December 2005, and the government subsequently admitted that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on Americans’ telephone calls without warrants if the government believed the person on the other end was overseas and associated with terrorism. The government also secretly enlisted the help of major U.S. telecoms, including AT&T, to spy on Americans’ phone and internet communications without getting warrants as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law at the center of the al-Haramain dispute.

A lower court judge found in 2010 that two American lawyers’ telephone conversations with their al-Haramain clients in Saudi Arabia were siphoned to the National Security Agency without warrants. The government subsequently declared the group a terror organization. The eavesdropping allegations were initially based on a classified document the government accidentally mailed to the former al-Haramain Islamic Foundation lawyers Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor.

The document was later declared a state secret, removed from the long-running lawsuit and has never been made public. With that document ruled out as evidence, the lawyers instead cited a bevy of circumstantial evidence that a trial judge concluded showed the government illegally wiretapped the lawyers as they spoke on U.S. soil to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...g-case-killed/

Rigs11 06-11-2013 08:36 AM

Senate Approves Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

The Senate on Friday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the President George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which was expiring Monday at midnight, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

The House approved the measure in September. President Barack Obama, who said the spy powers were a national security priority, is expected to quickly sign the package before the law Congress codified in 2008 expires in the coming days. Over the past two days, the Senate debated and voted down a handful of amendments in what was seen as largely political theater to get Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to lift a procedural hold on the FISA Amendments Act legislation that barred lawmakers from voting on the package.

In the end, the identical package the House passed 301-118 swept through the Senate on a 73-23 vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union immediately blasted the vote.

“The Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping, once considered a radical threat to the Fourth Amendment, has become institutionalized for another five years,” said Michelle Richardson, the ACLU’s legislative counsel.

Amendments senators refused to enact included extending the measure for just three years, another one requiring the government to account for how many times Americans’ communications have been intercepted, and one by Wyden prohibiting U.S. spy agencies from reviewing the communications of Americans ensnared in the program.

“The amendment I fought to include would have helped bring the constitutional principles of security and liberty back into balance and intend to work with my colleagues to see that the liberties of individual Americans are maintained,” Wyden said immediately after the vote.

The legislation does not require the government to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

The government has also interpreted the law to mean that as long as the real target is al-Qaeda, the government can wiretap purely domestic e-mails and phone calls without getting a warrant from a judge. That’s according to David Kris, a former top anti-terrorism attorney at the Justice Department.

In short, Kris said the FISA Amendments Act gives the government nearly carte blanche spying powers.

Kris, who headed the Justice Department’s National Security Division between 2009 and 20011, writes in the revised 2012 edition of National Security Investigations and Prosecutions:

For example, an authorization targeting ‘al Qaeda’ — which is a non-U.S. person located abroad—could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.

The National Security Agency told lawmakers that it would be a violation of Americans’ privacy to disclose how the measure is being used in practice.

After Obama signs the legislation Friday, the spy powers won’t expire until December 31, 2017.

The law is the subject of a Supreme Court challenge. The Obama administration argues that the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other groups suing don’t have the legal standing to even bring a challenge.

A federal judge agreed, ruling the ACLU, Amnesty International, Global Fund for Women, Global Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, The Nation magazine, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union and other plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case because they could not demonstrate that they were subject to the warrantless eavesdropping.

The groups appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they often work with overseas dissidents who might be targets of the National Security Agency program. Instead of speaking with those people on the phone or through e-mails, the groups asserted that they have had to make expensive overseas trips in a bid to maintain attorney-client confidentiality. The plaintiffs, some of them journalists, also claim the 2008 legislation chills their speech, and violates their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Without ruling on the merits of the case, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs last year that they have ample reason to fear the surveillance program, and thus have legal standing to pursue their claim.

The case, argued last month, is pending an opinion from the Supreme Court.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...sa-amendments/

baja 06-11-2013 08:50 AM

So no concern about the ability to collect dirt or embarrassing information to black mail judges or anyone in government or other positions of power.

You can destroy any person with unlimited access to this much information. You can build a case to destroy just about anyone. " You will vote as I say senator, I own you."

ghwk 06-11-2013 08:52 AM

We just need an opt out selection in the email options panel. That should take care of everything.

Pick Six 06-11-2013 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Large (Post 3860141)
Do we want:

1. Unobstructed Civil Liberties, with the trade-off being security failures and domestic attacks we consider collateral damage of a free country.

2. High Security, a dragnet that perhaps catches the 9/11 conspirators or the Boston Brothers with the trade off not knowing where, when and for how long that data is used and stored.

To me a strong domestic defense comprises not only military might but also strong informatics that identify and diffuse threats.... perhaps the the question that needs to be asked is what is the spirit of the Constitution, the 4th Amendment as it applies to 2013?

That's where I'm conflicted. The 9/11 hijackers were American. it would be great to catch them BEFORE something bad happens. I know that's spying on Americans, but I don't want another homegrown terrorist plot...

TonyR 06-11-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

These were legally authorized programs; in the case of Verizon Business’s phone records, Snowden certainly knew this, because he leaked the very court order that approved the continuation of the project. So he wasn’t blowing the whistle on anything illegal; he was exposing something that failed to meet his own standards of propriety. The question, of course, is whether the government can function when all of its employees (and contractors) can take it upon themselves to sabotage the programs they don’t like. That’s what Snowden has done.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...s-no-hero.html

Rigs11 06-11-2013 09:22 AM

Gotta wonder what Boner truly knows about this.Everyone is up in arms, the GOP is freaking out, and then you have the speaker saying this. Political? of course notHilarious!


Boehner calls Snowden a traitor; Rand Paul 'reserving judgment
'
(CNN) – Republicans on Capitol Hill offered differing assessments Tuesday of the ex-CIA employee who leaked top secret documents detailing the American government's surveillance activities to the Guardian newspaper.

"He's a traitor," House Speaker John Boehner said bluntly on ABC's "Good Morning America," adding he thought Edward Snowden's leaks had put Americans at risk.

"The president outlined last week that these are important national security programs that help keep Americans safe and give us tools that help fight the terrorist threat we face," Boehner said. "The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it's a giant violation of the law."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ent/?hpt=hp_t2

06-11-2013 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3860211)

Getting some judge somewhere to sign off on repealing the 4th Amendment does not make it 'legal'

The machinations of official tyranny eventually have to be met with something other than compliance.

Just so I'm on the record with our Federal Overlords on that. :)

Rohirrim 06-11-2013 11:02 AM

Since when did the Senate arrogate to itself the power to set aside key provisions of the Bill of Rights?

06-11-2013 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3860296)
Since when did the Senate arrogate to itself the power to set aside key provisions of the Bill of Rights?

Probably since the advent of International Terrorism, suprise Domestic Attacks and other gloabl threats.

TonyR 06-11-2013 12:39 PM

Quote:

So now both Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, are on record calling Edward Snowden a traitor. Meanwhile, per the New York Times, the NSA and the Justice Department are rapidly moving up towards the failsafe line where efforts to secure Snowden’s extradition for prosecution (assuming he can be found; he’s now left his Hong Kong hotel for unknown destinations) would be triggered
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...=Google+Reader

Rohirrim 06-11-2013 06:06 PM

The FBI has dramatically increased its use of a controversial provision of the Patriot Act to secretly obtain a vast store of business records of U.S. citizens under President Barack Obama, according to recent Justice Department reports to Congress. The bureau filed 212 requests for such data to a national security court last year – a 1,000-percent increase from the number of such requests four years earlier, the reports show.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...s-records?lite

baja 06-11-2013 06:17 PM

But I am told your government loves you and endeavors to protect you, have I been misinformed?

Rohirrim 06-11-2013 06:52 PM

Does the national security court ever tell the FBI no? And how would we know if they did?

06-11-2013 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3860604)
Does the national security court ever tell the FBI no? And how would we know if they did?

Its a corrupt rubber stamp. Hard to argue otherwise at this point.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-11-2013 08:03 PM

The only thing that surprises me is the lack of solidarity by the boot-licking progressives.

houghtam 06-11-2013 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 3860660)
The only thing that surprises me is the lack of solidarity by the boot-licking progressives.

I bet it sucks when your world view doesn't fit into the pigeon hole your echo chamber has created.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-11-2013 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houghtam (Post 3860674)
I bet it sucks when your world view doesn't fit into the pigeon hole your echo chamber has created.

Do you align with 2007 Obama, or 2013 Obama? Because my worldview totally has you with 2013. But if not, even better.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.