NSA--The Only Part Of Government That Actually Listens!

[Mainecoons]

This is pretty funny and rather true:

http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/08/nsa-logo-parody.jpg

Of course, the little government fascists didn't think so.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/nsa-crushes-free-speech-on-t-shirts/?cat_orig=us

[jillian]

This is pretty funny and rather true:



Of course, the little government fascists didn't think so.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/nsa-crushes-free-speech-on-t-shirts/?cat_orig=us


world nut daily? lmao...

y'all were ok with it when shrub was president.

[junie]

too bad our big bad fascist government didn't 'spy' on the boston bombers, huh?

[jillian]

too bad our big bad fascist government didn't 'spy' on the boston bombers, huh?

i hear ya. weren't they complaining that no one caught them in advance?

[Chris]

Funny headline followed by ad hom and a gotcha.

Junie, they probably did listen but screwed it up, it is government after all.

[GrassrootsConservative]

too bad our big bad fascist government didn't 'spy' on the boston bombers, huh?

Why would it have mattered? Obama is too big of a bitch to do anything even in the face of real danger, like Benghazi. He didn't save those true heroes of America so why would he try and save ANYONE else?

[jillian]

Funny headline followed by ad hom and a gotcha.

Junie, they probably did listen but screwed it up, it is government after all.

you mean ransom's ad hom?

yeah, we know.

but he's not worth paying attention to. so i'd get over it if i were you.

[GrassrootsConservative]

i hear ya. weren't they complaining that no one caught them in advance?

"They?" You weren't complaining? Of course not. Probably too busy celebrating.

[jillian]

Why would it have mattered? Obama is too big of a bitch to do anything even in the face of real danger, like Benghazi. He didn't save those true heroes of America so why would he try and save ANYONE else?

^^^^^^

obama derangement syndrome at its finest.

[GrassrootsConservative]

you mean ransom's ad hom?

yeah, we know.

but he's not worth paying attention to. so i'd get over it if i were you.

Ransom has not made a single post in this thread. Do try to pay attention.

[jillian]

Funny headline followed by ad hom and a gotcha.

Junie, they probably did listen but screwed it up, it is government after all.

yes, anarchy and made up law in the air is better...

lol

[Chris]

you mean ransom's ad hom?

yeah, we know.

but he's not worth paying attention to. so i'd get over it if i were you.


Ransom hasn't posted, what are you talking about?

Ransom is ok, why do you want to attack him personally?

[Chris]

yes, anarchy and made up law in the air is better...

lol



And what are you talking about???

[junie]

i hear ya. weren't they complaining that no one caught them in advance?



yep, think about it... the different agencies did not share the info! why oh why do you think that is...?






"Boston's top cop said Thursday that the feds did not share alleged bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev's name with city and state police..."

"Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis also recommended heightened security around public events, while warning it should not come at the expense of civil liberties. "


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-top-testify-congress-security-article-1.1339091

[Mainecoons]

too bad our big bad fascist government didn't 'spy' on the boston bombers, huh?

Yeah, they were too busy spying on you and Jillian, suckers.\

BTW Jillian, is the story false? Is the picture false?

If so, please provide a correction.

[Mainecoons]

Oh, and Jillian, from the Associated Press:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-21-15-07-51


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Security Agency declassified three secret court opinions Wednesday showing how it scooped up as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by Americans not connected to terrorism annually over three years, revealed the error to the court and then fixed the problem.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release.

Note that last sentence. Who here is so naive they believe this is the extent of the problem?

Or just a little sop thrown out to try and convince the suckers that is all the NSA has been up to when it comes to spying on ordinary Americans.

[junie]

" A secret federal court found that the National Security Agency violated the civil rights of Americans when it collected thousands of emails and other digital messages between Americans, according to a 2011 opinion released Wednesday.


The FISA court ruled parts of the program to be unconstitutional and ordered them to be revised. The government made changes and the court signed off on the program in November of 2011. "

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/11/190742087/what-did-congress-really-know-about-nsa-tracking






^ but snowden took it upon himself to intentionally spy and hand our national security playbook over to russia and china and wikifreak. :loco:

[Chris]

" A secret federal court found that the National Security Agency violated the civil rights of Americans when it collected thousands of emails and other digital messages between Americans, according to a 2011 opinion released Wednesday.


The FISA court ruled parts of the program to be unconstitutional and ordered them to be revised. The government made changes and the court signed off on the program in November of 2011. "

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/11/190742087/what-did-congress-really-know-about-nsa-tracking






^ but snowden took it upon himself to intentionally spy and hand our national security playbook over to russia and china and wikifreak. :loco:



How do you know that, junie, not even the NSA knows what all documents he took.

US doesn't know what Snowden took, sources say (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/20/20108770-us-doesnt-know-what-snowden-took-sources-say?lite)


More than two months after documents leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden first began appearing in the news media, the National Security Agency still doesn’t know the full extent of what he took, according to intelligence community sources, and is “overwhelmed” trying to assess the damage....

[junie]

The surveillance program was authorized by the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (FAA), which permits the executive branch to engage in large-scale, programmatic surveillance of foreign targets outside the United States. The surveillance is subject to approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and to procedures intended to minimize incidental interception of information regarding U.S. persons, a category encompasses citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain associations and corporations.

On the date of the FAA’s enactment, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing among other things that the statute’s key surveillance provision was contrary to the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutional on its face. A Second Circuit panel held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, and the full Second Circuit denied rehearing on a close vote. (For more background, see (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/clapper-and-the-future-of-surveillance/) these (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/more-on-clapper/) posts (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/10/supreme-court-oral-argument-in-clapper-v-amnesty-international-this-morning/), as well as this (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/11/lawfare-podcast-episode-21-jameel-jaffer-and-benjamin-powell-on-clapper-v-amnesty-international/) Lawfare podcast featuring the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, and Benjamin Powell, former general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and architect of the FAA.)
...


Today the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit. Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the court, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

***



The Majority Opinion


The majority opinion proceeded in two steps, dealing first with the plaintiffs’ claims of likely future injury. Justice Alito thought these “too speculative to satisfy the well-established requirement that threatened injury must be ‘certainly impending.’” Rejecting the Second Circuit’s “objectively reasonable likelihood” standard as “inconsistent” with the “certainly impending” requirement of cases like Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), Justice Alito identified five things that would have to happen for the plaintiffs’ feared injury to occur: (1) the government would have to target those non-U.S. individuals with whom the plaintiffs wanted to communicate; (2) the government would do so under its FAA (rather than some alternative) authorities; (3) the FISC would approve the surveillance; (4) the government would actually succeed in intercepting the targeted communications; and (5) the interception would include the plaintiffs’ communications.


Justice Alito held that the plaintiffs’ claims were too speculative on all counts. With respect to the government’s actual surveillance activities, he noted that, because the government’s targeting practices are secret and the FAA merely authorizes, rather than directs, the government to engage in such targeting, “respondents can only speculate as to how the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target.”

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/c...s-wiretapping/ (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/clapper-opinion-recap-supreme-court-denies-standing-to-challenge-nsa-warantless-wiretapping/)