- This topic has 220 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM #762011May 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM #762012
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantBG: I’d imagine that this is something that would fall under the aegis of a FISA court. The gubment has so abused this Act, that it’s now essentially a rubber stamp for whatever they want to do.
Part of this conversation should include the Obama Administration’s war on leaks and whistleblowers. This administration is positively Nixonian in its level of paranoia.
May 14, 2013 at 4:21 PM #762013no_such_reality
ParticipantI’m guessing the words “Patriot Act” played a role.
May 14, 2013 at 4:32 PM #762014SK in CV
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
No, the US AG is part of the Presidential Cabinet. Under normal circumstances, an entity or person wishing to subpoena phone records would be required to send a “Notice to Consumer” or similar notice to the entity or individual for whom records were being sought a certain number of days in advance of the deadline for those records to be produced. This is to give the individual or entity served enough time to file a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum.This wasn’t done in this case. I don’t know what special powers the US AG’s Office would possess in order to get around this procedure.
Perhaps the semi-well-versed-in-Constitutional-law Pigg SK in CV can shed some light on how/why the AG got the AP to cooperate with their (improper?) SDT in the absence of proper notice, since Pigg scaredycat/Walter has been ignoring us of late.
Certainly the AP has permanent counsel chained to their ankle. There is much to learn here as to why Holder is seemingly large and in charge … but um, really isn’t.
Holder’s Lackey, Cole, stated that two months of phone records were obtained from the AP by subpoena
It is CLEAR here that the US AG was “representing” the CIA in the “acquisition” of the AP’s phone records of 20 of its reporters.[/quote]
I suspect the phone records didn’t come from AP. In fact, that’s gotta be the case, otherwise they (AP) wouldn’t have been surprised when they were notified after the fact. They probably came from numerous phone companies, which were served with the subpoenas. I can’t f’ing believe they didn’t get a warrant, but at least so far, there’s no indication that they did.
I’m guessing it’s the FBI that’s doing the investigation, not the CIA. More likely than not, the leak that they were investigating was a CIA leak, so they want some independence. Plus, I don’t think the CIA can legally do investigations domestically, except on TV.
May 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM #762015bearishgurl
ParticipantI’d be curious as to what was found in those two months phone records of 20 reporters that would rise to the level of “leaking US secrets” and “cooperating with spies.”
Since hardly any or none of them possess any type of security clearance, the CIA/US AG sure seem to be giving these lowly news reporters a lot of credit.
I would be surprised to learn if any “untoward” numbers at all were dialed/rec’d from in that thick stack of phone bills for 20 rptrs x 2 mos, lol. If they were, how would any of these peons’ KNOW the caller/callee was a spy??
This whole debacle may very well have been “engineered” for naught, IMHO.
May 14, 2013 at 4:38 PM #762016Participant[quote=SK in CV]I suspect the phone records didn’t come from AP. In fact, that’s gotta be the case, otherwise they (AP) wouldn’t have been surprised when they were notified after the fact. They probably came from numerous phone companies, which were served with the subpoenas. I can’t f’ing believe they didn’t get a warrant, but at least so far, there’s no indication that they did.
I’m guessing it’s the FBI that’s doing the investigation, not the CIA. More likely than not, the leak that they were investigating was a CIA leak, so they want some independence. Plus, I don’t think the CIA can legally do investigations domestically, except on TV.[/quote]
Absolutely, SK. The records came from the phone companies. But shouldn’t the AP have been sent a notice that their records were being sought X number of days ahead of the service of the SDT(s) with the reason why they were being sought? Was “procedure” followed correctly by the US AG?
May 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM #762017Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’d be curious as to what was found in those two months phone records of 20 reporters that would rise to the level of “leaking US secrets” and “cooperating with spies.”
Since hardly any or none of them possess any type of security clearance, the CIA/US AG sure seem to be giving these lowly news reporters a lot of credit.
I would be surprised to learn if any “untoward” numbers at all were dialed/rec’d from in that thick stack of phone bills for 20 rptrs x 2 mos, lol. If they were, how would any of these peons’ KNOW the caller/callee was a spy??
This whole debacle may very well have been “engineered” for naught, IMHO.[/quote]
They KNOW a secret was leaked. AP reported it, and refused to divulge their source. Phone records would show calls made to or received from assets numbers. Except I’m hoping that spooks know to use a burner phone for that kind of stuff. I know I always do.
SCOTUS said years ago that no warrant is required for phone records, no expectation of privacy because callers are telling the service providers who they’re calling. Still would have been a good idea.
May 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM #762018Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Absolutely, SK. The records came from the phone companies. But shouldn’t the AP have been sent a notice that their records were being sought X number of days ahead of the service of the SDT(s) with the reason why they were being sought? Was “procedure” followed correctly by the US AG?[/quote]Technically, the records didn’t belong to AP, so no. Records belonged to all the phone companies.
Horrible precedent. I don’t think there’s any legal redress.
May 14, 2013 at 5:10 PM #762019earlyretirement
ParticipantYes, these things are HORRIBLE but honestly these are probably not new things that haven’t been going on for years. The truth of the matter is that lots of bad stuff goes on in the USA. This isn’t anything new.
MANY more far worse things happen every day that Americans will never hear or know about.
The only difference now is with the advances in technology and the power of the Internet we hear more and more about these things. But honestly, these aren’t new things that are just happening today.
I’d imagine if the typical American knew all the things happening they would be horrified.
Still, the USA is one of the best countries in the world. Really all of these “civilized and free” countries all have similar type stuff that goes on.
I’ve lived in developing countries and the amount of corruption and horrible things would shock you. So really these things aren’t new and nothing compared to some other countries.
For the most part, privacy really doesn’t exist in the USA to the extent that people think it does.
BG, all those measures you do sound good and well but in almost any instant if someone really wanted to find out who you were, they probably could do it pretty easily. Unless you are in some cave not posting on the internet, not talking on the phone, etc. your odds are greatly reduced but I could tell you about some stories that would make your head spin.
I remember in the early days of the internet when there wasn’t much technology like today and even then people could pretty easily find out who you are just from emails or posts on blogs. I had this friend back in the early 2000’s. I’m talking genius type of guy that used to work at NASA. He’d tell me some stories about the government that really would make my head spin.
May 14, 2013 at 5:17 PM #762020CA renter
ParticipantThe govt doesn’t need warrants, silly-billies!
…
All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an “apparently accidental” “glitch” resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
…..It’s just an “accident” when they tap phone lines of American citizens or residents who might be “domestic terrorists.”
May 14, 2013 at 5:18 PM #762021ParticipantThis is all just crazy conspiracy-theory nonsense! Now turn in your guns, please, and let the nice people from the government protect you from all these “threats.”
May 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM #762022Participant[quote=CA renter]The govt doesn’t need warrants, silly-billies!
…
All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an “apparently accidental” “glitch” resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
…..It’s just an “accident” when they tap phone lines of American citizens or residents who might be “domestic terrorists.”[/quote]
This particular incident has nothing to do with wiretaps. Only phone records.
May 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM #762023ParticipantSK,
That’s not how I understand it.
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
May 14, 2013 at 5:51 PM #762024Participant[quote=CA renter]SK,
That’s not how I understand it.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what incident you’re referring to. The one that’s been discussed here is phone records. Not tapped phone lines.
That said, there have been recent allegations by a former FBI agent that all phone calls (and texts, and emails) are recorded and stored, and can be accessed by law enforcement at a later date.
May 14, 2013 at 6:32 PM #762026Mark Holmes
Participant“I would be curious what kind of reaction to the IRS scandal the media would have had if the IRS was found to be targetting grassroots liberal groups as opposed to tea party .”
Curious? here you are:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.