- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has conducted warrantless searches of Americans' communications as part of the National Security Agency's surveillance operations that target foreigners located outside of the U.S., the administration's top intelligence official confirmed in a letter to Congress disclosed Tuesday.These searches were authorized by a secret surveillance court in 2011, but it was unclear until Tuesday whether any such searches on Americans had been conducted.
The recent acknowledgement of warrantless searches on Americans offers more insight into U.S. government surveillance operations put in place after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The government has broadly interpreted these laws to allow for the collection of communications of innocent Americans, practices the Obama administration maintains are legal. But President Obama has promised to review some of these programs to determine whether the government should be conducting this type of surveillance at all.
Read more @: U.S. confirms warrantless searches of Americans
A giant collective no **** moment. And hopefully a giant collective "this **** needs to stop ASAP" moment. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Still are warrantless. Still used against Americnas.It's not really warrantless, that's just a catch phrase used by hacks. There are a few major requirements regarding these searches:
1. One of the communicators must be outside the US.
2. One of the communicators must be on the Terrorist Watchlist.
3. A special warrant must be obtained, from a panel of judges, before the tap occurs.
4. For anything in the tap to be used against someone, a full warrant must be obtained without the use of tap-gained material.
Still are warrantless.
So you have no idea what you're talking about? Ok.
Still are warrantless. Still used against Americnas.
Yeah, against freedom loving US citizens who belong to patriot groups. Against those who stand up for their civil liberties and defend the Bill of Rights as a whole and not in part.
Your SPLC has labeled guys like me "extremists" and potential "terrorists" for even questioning government and their authoritarian intent.
If you call the FISA court offering legitimate warrants then you have to kidding me. FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests | Mother Jones
If anything the FISA court is essentially a rubber stamp.
Not at all. Its When they reject .03% of all warrants issues ever it essentially becomes a rubber stamp authority. Hell I be the PRC's congress or the DPRK's congress rejects more than .03% of all acts of law that come before them. How can you call something fair, democratic, or just when essentially everything that is brought before the body is accepted?By your logic, normal warrants can be declared insufficiently obtained and therefore no warrants exist at all.
A rubber stamp warrant. When something is rubber stamped its essentially unjust and unfair.Why can't you just be honest and admit that a warrant is required for the tap (among other strict requirements) and that a full warrant (without tap material) must be obtained before anything can be used against someone?
"Liberty and justice for all".Is it so difficult for you to admit reality?
Not at all. Its When they reject .03% of all warrants issues ever it essentially becomes a rubber stamp authority. Hell I be the PRC's congress or the DPRK's congress rejects more than .03% of all acts of law that come before them. How can you call something fair, democratic, or just when essentially everything that is brought before the body is accepted?
A rubber stamp warrant. When something is rubber stamped its essentially unjust and unfair.
Ohhh yea... Like it was never abused... :lamo http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/eavesdropping-ensnared-american-law-firm.html?_r=0 I wonder if these lawyers were on the terrorist watch list or any of the foreign officials... :lamoThe reason that so few FISA warrants are rejected is because of the strict requirements for requesting the FISA warrant in the first place. With one person outside the US and one person on the Terrorist Watchlist, I think the average person can figure this out.
Typical ecofarm, blame the source not the content.I'm sure your "Mother Jones" article blames the Illuminati, but let's be sensible people here.
Typical ecofarm, blame the source not the content.
Why are you being silly? There is a warrant required. The requirements for even requesting that warrant are so strict that very few are rejected. That's reality. Deal with it.
It's not really warrantless, that's just a catch phrase used by hacks. There are a few major requirements regarding these searches:
1. One of the communicators must be outside the US.
2. One of the communicators must be on the Terrorist Watchlist.
3. A special warrant must be obtained, from a panel of judges, before the tap occurs.
4. For anything in the tap to be used against someone, a full warrant must be obtained without the use of tap-gained material.
1. Then we should all be warned with an audio message every time we make an international phone call that the conversation may be monitored.
2. I believe that is not true, one of the communicators only needs to be considered suspicious. Even if it is limited to only people on a Terror Watchlist we have no idea whether those lists are accurate and there is no way to appeal being placed in the list.
3. A secret court in a secret proceeding sees who-knows-how-much secret evidence of unknown accuracy before making the decision. No wonder they very rarely turn down a surveillance request.
4. That assumes that legal proceedings are used against the suspect instead of him being sent somewhere via rendition for torture and indefinite incarceration without a legitimate trial.
*Cough cough* rubber stamp.
:roll: Yea... Surrreee they have..
You could say the same about any warrant, and thereby claim no warrants exist at all.
Why must you ignore reality?
Do a quick Google search and you find that warrants are often times denied
Certainly not often enough. Let's just say they don't exist. Why not? Ignoring reality is a great routine and lots of fun, right?
You could say the same about any warrant, and thereby claim no warrants exist at all.
Why must you ignore reality?
Why are you pointing out a hypothetical to remove warrants now?
So your saying all warrant processes are rubber stamps?I'm pointing out how stupid your reasoning is for claiming that warrants are not obtained.
Where did i do this? Please point that out for me.You use conspiracy theory to discount the warrants and then claim they don't exist.
Read more @: U.S. confirms warrantless searches of Americans
A giant collective no **** moment. And hopefully a giant collective "this **** needs to stop ASAP" moment. [/FONT][/COLOR]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?