Posted on 06/15/2013 4:52:01 PM PDT by tje
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
He may be. Dianne Feinstein fits the same mold as he. And she says differently.
Interesting times.
I got a kick of Nadler being described as an attorney. The only reason he went to Fordham Law was because his mother did not believe being a politician would ever pay the bills and she didn’t even foresee him as being successful at it. He’s NEVER practiced. I worked with his twin Rich, a libertarian for 16 years and there’s alot about Jerry that I can share.
I will bet these government scum bags had their ears burned off, when they heard many of us on the phone, telling them to spend eternity in a very very hot place.
I think we are in agreement. I am not rejecting anything out of hand, other than those who would believe these sources out of hand.
I wonder if we will ever know the truth.
This government needs to be reined in.
“I don’t mean to seem contrary, tje, but have a hunch it’s too late for reins. I suspect the only sensible solution is for the states that wish to remain American to secede, reassert our original Constitution, and let the remainder continue to degenerate into so-called “progressive” hell holes.”
__
I agree S/W , however I don’t think that’s going to happen without a lot of violence being involved
This is an extremely damning charge to make. If he's lying, then where are the other congressmen to set the record straight?
“That doesn’t track with my reading of the constitution, please explain..”
I am not giving a Constitutional opinion, just saying what I think the problem is.
You can quote the Constitution and related case law to tell me I’m wrong; and I would not dispute a well reasoned and documented answer.
Now the idiots in the WH will start WW3 just to wag the damned b!tch (er, dog).
It's possible we will.
More likely our grandchildren might, if they study poli-sci as part of the power structure.
Assuming any of our children are allowed to live, of course...
Thid could only happen under a president who believes the government should have no bounds.
That’s my point. Few actually know what is real and would recognize if the record would actually be set straight. Which Congressmen would you believe? Nadler, Feinstein, Rand Paul or Saxby Chambliss (as examples of differing views). Congress is all over the map on this one.
Document dump.
Not the same mold. Not at all.
Dianne Feinstein has a position to preserve. She chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. Whatever's been going on, she is supposed to a.) be aware of it and b.) have approved of it.
Would Jerold Nadler lie to you? More than likely.
Would Diane Feinstein lie to you? Damn betcha. Especially if telling the truth might reflect poorly on her.
Lying twerp, school dropout, Chinese spy, failed soldier, pole dancer dupe, narcissist etc. They haven't settled on a meme. Somehow, despite being a dope and a complete nothing, he managed to be good enough to scam 100+ out of a contractor. Our feudal lords will do what they do best after they discredit him with the serfs. It'll be "Off with his head".
You’re right. I did not mean to equate Feinstein and Nadler except that they were both Dems. I’m sure there are other Dems who defend NSA and aren’t on the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
They all have something to protect in the long run.
Back to my larger point about jumping on the bandwagon because congresscritter X said Y about subject Z. Too often here, posters have already made up their minds on a subject (rightly or wrongly) and then point to any statement made by any source and shout,”See! I told you so!”
I can’t that but that sort of approach.
but = buy
Well, the 4th amendment specifically prohibits violation of a person’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects without a probable cause affirmed by oath or affirmation with specificity as to who, what, where and why...
e.g. “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
4th amendment text is as follows:
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.
Are you averring that the ambiguity of the term “unreasonable” is what is problematic? Or are you saying a warrant isn’t needed for wiretaps (without regard to the patriot act provisions).
I’m not sure where to go or what to specify if you aren’t a bit more direct about it (hence my request for further explanation).
Those of us that read this wired article 15 months ago have little doubt.
I would love to hear about Jerry. PM me if you prefer.
This is from Wiki, so I guess you can take it or leave it:
A threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a search has occurred. If no search occurred, then the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth.[22] The Court’s reasoning was that 1) Charles Katz expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____ (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that, in addition to the Katz standard, a search occurs when law enforcement trespasses on the searched person’s property. In Jones, law enforcement officers had attached a GPS device on a car’s exterior without Antoine Jones’s consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a bailee to the car, because the car’s owner had regularly permitted him to use the car, and so had a property interest in the car.[23]
I would say that under the Katz precedent (case law I guess) all telephone conversations would start out with the expectation of privacy and also the general consensus that it would be unreasonable to drag a wide net across all telecom as is asserted here and severally in the last few weeks. I mean if there’s an expectation of privacy when using a telephone booth, then the barrier would be higher when using a personal telephone or wireless device (e.g. a cell phone).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.