Showing posts with label 4th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4th Amendment. Show all posts

Sunday, January 5, 2014

NSA's phone spying began under Bush

Whether you agree or not with the NSA's massive, indiscriminate collection of telephone "metadata" on terrorist suspects and innocent Americans alike, this op-ed by the Bush Administration lawyer who got initial court approval to collect such data highlights that the NSA's domestic spying program was started under Dubya.

As a good Democratic soldier, I just wanted to point that out to all my outraged, I say outraged, Republican friends who suddenly rediscovered the 4th Amendment once a Democrat with a Muslim name became POTUS.

Enjoy.


By Steven G. Bradbury
January 3, 2014 | Washington Post

Saturday, June 22, 2013

How FISA law became unconstitutional

One terrorist act and one amendment at a time, that's how.  Argues law professor Laura Donahue:

To the extent that the FISC sanctioned PRISM, it may be consistent with the law. But it is disingenuous to suggest that millions of Americans’ e-mails, photographs and documents are “incidental” to an investigation targeting foreigners overseas.

The telephony metadata program raises similar concerns. FISA did not originally envision the government accessing records. Following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Congress allowed applications for obtaining records from certain kinds of businesses. In 2001, lawmakers further expanded FISA to give the government access to any business or personal records. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government no longer has to prove that the target is a foreign power. It need only state that the records are sought as part of an investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence.

This means that FISA can now be used to gather records concerning individuals who are neither the target of any investigation nor an agent of a foreign power. Entire databases — such as telephony metadata — can be obtained, as long as an authorized investigation exists.

President Obama is taking a lot of heat right now for the NSA's spying on us and rightly so.  But let's not let Congress off the hook.  They passed these laws.  They could pass a law to outlaw PRISM tomorrow, if they wanted to.  


By Laura K. Donohue
June 21, 2013 | Washington Post

Friday, June 21, 2013

Grayson: 'We don't defend our freedom by giving it away'

posted by Alan Grayson
June 21, 2013 | Democratic Underground

This past week, controversy raged over the revelation that under the guise of "foreign surveillance," the Defense Department is obtaining information about every telephone call in America.  As if that weren't enough, DoD also is collecting information on e-mails, videos, stored data, log-ins, etc., from Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL and Skype.  Congressman Alan Grayson took to the airwaves to condemn that invasion of our privacy, and that trampling on the Fourth Amendment, in this interview on national TV:

Thom Hartmann: In the best of the rest of the news, yesterday the House Committee on Rules blocked an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have drastically cut back the NSA's ability to collect data on American citizens. An amendment was proposed by Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida. It would have prohibited the Defense Department from collecting information on U.S. citizens without probable cause of a terrorism or criminal offense. Congressman Grayson's amendment, of course, comes on the heels of reports that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the telephone records and internet information of U.S. citizens. So while the House Rules Committee may have rejected the Congressman's amendment, what else can be done now to stop the national security state from invading the privacy of U.S. citizens? Joining me now for more on that is Congressman Alan Grayson, representing Florida's 9th district. Congressman, welcome. 

Congressman Alan Grayson: Thank you. 

Thom: Or welcome back. First of all, I'm rather astounded by the Rules Committee knocking down your amendment, which seems like it echoes the Fourth Amendment. 

Alan: Well the Rules Committee consists of nine Republicans and four Democrats. But I think that there are Members of Congress even now who aren't aware of the severity of this problem. It's been a week since we learned that every single call that Verizon carries – Verizon being the largest cell phone carrier in the United States -- every single call has call details – who is calling whom, when they're talking, how long they're talking – and that's all given to the Department of Defense. Every single call. Not only that, but there's no reason to think that if Verizon's doing this, that AT&T is not doing it. So we have to assume that every call that we make in America – even local calls, even calls to your grandmother – all those calls are being handed over to the government, in terms of the call details. In addition to that, the PowerPoint presentation internal to the NSA that was also leaked, at the same time, indicates that the NSA, according to that information, can pull from AOL servers, from Microsoft servers, from Google servers, from virtually every single Internet provider in the country, information that hosts e-mails, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol, which is basically the contents of telephone calls), and a whole host of other information that people regard as personal. Now, that's where we are right now. I think many Members of Congress are not aware of that. I think many members of your audience were not aware of the fact that the government's getting information on every single call they make. Now the question is, "What do we do about it?" The Rules Committee decided to do nothing. The Republicans outnumber the Democrats nine to four on the Rules Committee, so that doesn't surprise me. 

Thom: But the Fourth Amendment is pretty unambiguous. I mean basically we're supposed to be secure in our persons, papers, home, property, unless somebody goes before a judge and swears under oath that they have reason to believe – you know, probable cause to believe – that a crime is being committed.  Then the judge issues a very specific warrant defining the place and things to be seized, or persons to be – you know I'm badly paraphrasing the Fourth Amendment, but you know it. How is it that this is partisan? 

Alan: Well, what relying on is a decision from something like thirty or forty years ago that indicated that "pen register" information, the calling record of one person, could be released without any Fourth Amendment violation by the government, because said that pen register information was not something that the Fourth Amendment constrained. Now, what they've decided is that because they could do it to one person, they can do it to every person. The document that was leaked, the court order that was leaked, is in fact a court order to Verizon that claims to be based upon applicable law. It happens to be signed by a right-wing judge who also declared that Obamacare was unconstitutional. But leaving that aside, what the agency is doing is it's purporting to rely upon this ancient string of irrelevant legal applications, in order to spy on every one of us. 

Thom:  I just said, "How could this be partisan?" You were talking about the Republicans on the committee blocking this.  You're basically bringing the Fourth Amendment into this. And yet it's a democratic administration that's doing it. The NSA is part of the Department of Defense, which is part of the Obama Administration. Are you hearing anything from the Obama Administration that they might be having second thoughts about what they're doing? 

Alan:  Well, the NSA, DoD, and other figures are part of the Administration .  Not the President himself, though, yet. Other figures have launched a vigorous defense of this practice, saying there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Department of Defense getting telephone records about every single human being in America. Bear in mind that we've had a law going back to the 1870s, called the Posse Comitatus Act, that prevents DoD from having any operations in the United States. Now it turns out that DoD is getting all records of all of our telephone calls, and yet somehow that's defensible. You're right -- this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all, because we have Republicans who are getting their telephone records turned over, Democrats, everyone. And therefore everyone should be up in arms. We had over 10,000 people go to our website our bill . The website is MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com. Ten thousand people came to the website, and became citizen co-sponsors of my bill, in the first 24 hours. Eventually, sooner or later, we're going to see that bill heard. 

Thom: That's marvelous. MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com is the website. Congressman, we have just about a minute left. I'm curious, your thoughts on where we're going to go from here? What's next? 

Alan:  What's next is for people who respect privacy, people who respect liberty, people who respect freedom, to state, clearly, that we don't protect our freedom by giving it away. There has to be a constant, consistent effort. There certainly will be on my part.  I hope there'll be the same on the part of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others, to make sure that we put an end to this pernicious practice, and protect our cherished freedom. 

Thom: But how do you respond to people who say, "But oh, I'm so afraid of terrorists"? 

Alan: Oh look, you know. If somebody can explain to me how tapping your phone will prevent terrorism, Thom, then at that point I'll start to be convinced. 

Thom:  Ok, I got it, and totally agree with you. Once again, the website was – 

Alan: MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com. 

Thom: MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com. Congressman Alan Grayson, great work. 

Alan: Thank you. 

Thom: Thank you so much for being with us today. 

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Obama no better than Dubya when it comes to domestic spying

What a hypocrite Obama is. He's just continuing the deplorable Bush-Cheney legacy. The federal government is still "vacuuming up" absolutely everything we say on e-mail, faxes, mobile phones, or with our credit cards. There are no 4th-Amendment-specific warrants. The NSA is spying on us "24/7."

And you sorry saps are worried about socialist health care. May Allah have mercy on your sorry, deluded souls.


SLIGHT CORRECTION (11.11.2009): A Hillary-for-Prez supporter told me that Obama pledged during the Democratic primary to continue Dubya's illegal domestic spying program. This is not exactly true as far as I can tell, but he did support Bush's spying with his vote in the Senate. So, he is still a hypocrite, but his hypocrisy started back in 2008.


By Tom Burghardt
November 7, 2009 | Global Research

Monday, March 26, 2007

Editorial: NYPD spying violated 4th Amendment

If you really want to know more about this fascist, un-Constitutional scandal perpetrated by Bloomberg's NYPD, read this debate between Paul J. Browne, New York City Police Department's Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, and Jethro Eisenstein, civil rights attorney and co-counsel on the Handschu case, which put limits on how police may carry out "political investigations."


NYPD spying violates Fourth Amendment

From the editors

Posted: 3/26/07


Prior to the 2004 Republican National Convention held at Madison Square Garden, a New York Police Department division dubbed the "RNC Intelligence Squad" traveled around America and to Europe and the Middle East to surveil activist groups interested in protesting or disrupting the event, The New York Times reported.


The NYPD sent representatives pretending to be sympathizers to 15 states and abroad to report directly to New York, which led to the arrest of more than 1,800 people before or during the four-day convention.


While the City of New York could take no shortcuts to ensure the safety of the convention's guests, what authority does a city police department have to oversee the investigation of groups outside its jurisdiction?


The New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents the arrested protesters, contends the NYPD overstepped its boundaries by targeting groups with no obvious plans to break the law.


According to court documents, the NYPD's wide-ranging list of suspects included the theater troupe Billionaires for Bush, which intentionally avoids confrontations that could lead to arrests, and Bands Against Bush, which organized speeches and concerts in five cities during the convention, The Times reported.


While the department's tactics were approved under the outdated Handscu Authority, which was created in 1980 in response to the NYPD's unreasonable surveillance of Vietnam protesters, at no time did the squad have to answer to federal authorities.


While the city cannot rely solely on the intelligence it receives from national agencies, probing groups internationally should require more than the approval of Handscu, which was intended solely to monitor the actions of the NYPD.


The NYPD should have deferred to federal authorities, which have the standing resources and expertise to handle such a task, instead of cutting the Fourth Amendment's corners in its own investigation.