NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

A few days ago I created a hypothetical explaining why the NSA’s actions were ILLEGAL, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, and  VIOLATED THE 4th Amendment when America was told the NSA was “ONLY” keeping track of call “information”.  In response, there was a spirited debate where an internet source, “the King’s men”, argued, Our Supreme Court says the following things do not violate the 4th Amendment.   Then, we knew this to be true:

Hypothetically, let us assume the Supreme Court has decided (?) the King’s Sheriffs and Deputies can follow US Citizens without their knowledge (in secret), create a file on every American citizen, containing who they talk to, when they talk, how long they talk, where they talk, what they write, what they read, who they visit, where they shop, what they buy . . .

Well ladies and Gentlemen, now we learn Mr. Snowden was minimizing the REALITY, the TRUTH, of what “our government” is doing.

The KING’S SHERIFFS and DEPUTIES are listening to our conversations and saving them in every Individual’s personal file for eternity.

I am going to do something a little different with this post.  I am copying and pasting Declan McCullagh’s entire article.  Then I am bolding portions, and adding my commentary inside of [ parenthesis ].  I am not going to recreate the links in McCullagh’s article. I urge you to click on the linked title and go directly to his article.

Declan McCullagh’s informs us at  cnet.com the:

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

NSA Director Keith Alexander says his agency’s analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting “civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day.” (Credit: Getty Images)

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls. 

[The NSA admits it is acting ILLEGALLY.]

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.”  

[in order to be able to to this, government employees are listening to individual American’s phone conversations]

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 and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

[To put these actions in perspective:  “the largest Presidential scandal” was when President Nixon was accused of listening to the phone calls to and from one (1) office; NOW the President, is listening to the phone calls of every single American.]

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

[the Justice Department did NOT interpret our Constitution,  The Justice Department simply VIOLATED OUR CONSTITUTION.  And has been doing do for years, maybe decades.]

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler’s disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

[ALL COMMUNICATIONS, phone conversations, voicemails, “skype”, email, internet surfing, twitter, facebook, etc. ARE RECORDED AND KEPT IN YOUR PERSONAL FILE.]

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii “wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president.”

There are serious “constitutional problems” with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. “It epitomizes the problem of secret laws.”

[“serious constitutional problems” is the understatement of the century.  These actions are outright ILLEGAL]

The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET. A representative said Nadler was not immediately available. (This is unrelated to last week’s disclosure that the NSA is currently collecting records of the metadata of all domestic Verizon calls, but not the actual contents of the conversations.)


A portion of the NSA's mammoth data center in Bluffdale, Utah, scheduled to open this fall.

A portion of the NSA’s mammoth data center in Bluffdale, Utah, scheduled to open this fall.

(Credit: Getty Images)

Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls — in case an analyst needed to access the recordings in the future. A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established “listening posts” that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, “whether they originate within the country or overseas.” That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.

William Binney, a former NSA technical director who helped to modernize the agency’s worldwide eavesdropping network, told the Daily Caller this week that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more. “They look through these phone numbers and they target those and that’s what they record,” Binney said.

Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved.

NSA’s annual budget is classified but is estimated to be around $10 billion.

Documents that came to light in an EFF lawsuit provide some insight into how the spy agency vacuums up data from telecommunications companies. Mark Klein, who worked as an AT&T technician for over 22 years, disclosed in 2006 (PDF) that he witnessed domestic voice and Internet traffic being surreptitiously “diverted” through a “splitter cabinet” to secure room 641A in one of the company’s San Francisco facilities. The room was accessible only to NSA-cleared technicians.

AT&T and other telecommunications companies that allow the NSA to tap into their fiber links receive absolute immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution, thanks to a law that Congress enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012. It’s a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act.

[This would be an ILLEGAL law, even though our Supreme Court has lectured Americans in other opinions, “elections have consequences.]

That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed.

[This “law” is in direct violation of the Constitution and the 4th Amendment.]

A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA “may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.” A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically — on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to “target” a specific American citizen.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, an attorney and member of the House Judiciary committee, who said he was "startled" to learn that NSA analysts could eavesdrop on domestic calls without court authorization.Rep. Jerrold Nadler, an attorney and member of the House Judiciary committee, who said he was “startled” to learn that NSA analysts could eavesdrop on domestic calls without court authorization.(Credit: Getty Images)

Rep. Nadler’s disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.

[wait for it…. the lie….  initially Mueller attempted to say, warrants were being obtained…  this is where the “General Government admits they understand they are acting ILLEGALLY!]

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek “a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.”

Is information about that procedure “classified in any way?” Nadler asked.

“I don’t think so,” Mueller replied.

“Then I can say the following,” Nadler said. “We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that…In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency’s analysts have the ability to access the “content of a call.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence committee, acknowledged this week that NSA analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence committee, acknowledged this week that NSA analysts have the ability to access the “content of a call.”(Credit: Getty Images)

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA’s surveillance process involves “billions” of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.

[organized into a database = saved for eternity and accessed at will]

They can be accessed by an analyst who’s part of the NSA’s “workforce of thousands of people” who are “trained” annually in minimization procedures, he said. (McConnell, who had previously worked as the director of the NSA, is now vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden’s former employer.)

If it were “a U.S. person inside the United States, now that would stimulate the system to get a warrant,” McConnell told the committee. “And that is how the process would work. Now, if you have foreign intelligence data, you publish it [inside the federal government]. Because it has foreign intelligence value.”

[remember the 4th amendment?  REQUIRES SPECIFICITY OF WRONGDOING BEFORE, BEFORE, BEFORE, collecting the evidence.]

McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants.

[McConnell says the President is above the Constitution.  The President does not have to comply with the Constitution.  In other words, the President is KING, Monarch, or Dictator.  Simply: Tyranny.]

Former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN last month that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously made telephone call. “All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not,” he said. Clementeadded in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the “intelligence community” — an apparent reference to the NSA — “there’s a way to look at digital communications in the past.”

NSA Director Keith Alexander said this week that his agency’s analysts abide by the law: “They do this lawfully. They take compliance oversight, protecting civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day.”

[outright LIES.  This is TRUE EVIL in action.  Admit they are breaking the law, and then say we are abiding by the law.  I guess that would be the “secret Constitution” that only the “ELITE” know about…]

But that’s not always the case. A New York Times article in 2009 revealed the NSA engaged in significant and systemic “overcollection” of Americans’ domestic communications that alarmed intelligence officials. The Justice Department said in a statement at the time that it “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance” with the law.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, says he was surprised to see the 2008 FISA Amendments Act be used to vacuum up information on American citizens. “Everyone who voted for the statute thought it was about international communications,” he said.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Americans,

What “we patriots” believed to be true, using our individual “reason and common sense” to deduce reality, has now become “public knowledge”.  Normally, I attempt to stay away from religion, but now the mask has been removed from evil.

I am going to copy the thoughtful comments from one a patriot.  (Chhelo: please let me know if I am stepping outside the bounds and I will edit and remove your comment.)

1st, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence are all flawed documents because they are of “Man”. However, that being said, they are the closest Man has ever come to creating a Godly country on the Earth since God dispersed the Jewish People’s from the Promiseland after the death of the Generation of Joshua.

The Jewish people were loyal to God but for a short time and fell away. The rest is history.

Now lets take a break and go to the following Bible Study in Joshua about those times and see if it has relevance to today.  http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Joshua/Joshua_Lesson_10.htm

The ONLY way to save, protect, and preserve our nation, is to require the “general government” to act within the bounds of our Constitution.  The plain language.  In our founder’s words.  The “modern day Courts” have failed in their duty to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution, and all Americans.  This is the only way to preserve the United States of America.

May G-d bless and keep safe, America and her people.


30 thoughts on “NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

  1. In case you do not know the original source (remember: the Jedi were the Patriots who were painted as the villains by the Emperor so as to provide him with an excuse to publicly eliminate those Patriots, declare and emergency and suspend the republic’s constitution — and all in the name of “security”)

  2. Be careful. I read this earlier this morning and srted to post it but stopped due to the source. Nowhere in the story does it say that they actually did listen and it is alll based on what Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said. Those 7 words, “Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat”, make me want to hear it from another source.

    The program must be stopped because even if they didn’t violate the current law, it is clear that the opportunity is there and this regime will use that opportunity when it gets cornered…and it is running out of places to hide very quickly.

    • Whether a govt. agent listens to phone conversations or not;

      Any federal govt. actions which transgress the followong words are illegal:

      Amendment IV
      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.”

      • Look, Texas, I hate to keep bringing this up but the simple collection of this data is not illegal under current law…by anybody, commercial or governmental. What they do with it can be,though. I can’t put it any clearer – under Smith v. Maryland the collection is allowed…at least until it is challenged due to the changes in technology.

        Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy has a pretty good discussion of the complexity of the issues:

        Notably, unlike FISA’s prohibition on content monitoring, the Pen Register statute does not have an override for surveillance authorized elsewhere by statute. The prohibition against installing a pen register or trap and trace device in 18 U.S.C. 3121(a) requires a pen register order unless an exception is met, but most of the exceptions relate to either provider needs to monitor the network or else consent. There are some national security exceptions, but they are very narrow. So if you conclude that collecting bulk metadata amounts to the installation of a pen register and/or trap and trace device, you’re pretty much stuck with getting a pen register order (either through the criminal law authorities or FISA authorities) or else you’re committing a misdemeanor violation of the pen register statute. And that’s true even if the President has entered some kind of order — say, under the AUMF — authorizing the collection. It sounds like the FISC mooted the issue starting July 2004 by granting a database-wide pen register order. As I mentioned in my first post on the leaked Verizon order, the interpretive issue would have been pretty similar to that which was necessary to get a full-database collection order of stored records under Section 215.

        • Look Utah…..you keep ignoring that the Smith vs Maryland case DOES NOT correlate to collecting data on people who Haven’t committed Crimes. And the Patriot Act section which addresses these issues specifically states it was to be used to collect FORIEGNER’s info NOT a Blanket Info grab on innocent Americans.

          You use a Liberal Organization’s flawed analysis as if it were the answer to this whole issue……. when in fact THEIR iron in the fire is to do anything to insure that Obama and his regime are Protected.

          It wasn’t right under Bush ….. and it isn’t right under Obama ….. and the LEGALITY of collecting data on innocent people is far from settled. It is becoming evident to MANY Americans that the “Law” is being used and stretched to create a surveillance Police State. I congratulate you for doing your part to make sure that it succeeds.

          • Sorry you feel that way, Don. If I weren’t trying to be nicer I would tell you to screw yourself.

            I’ve never see such vitriol for simply pointing out what is, not what you guys want it to be. I’m not supporting the fucking program or the NSA but I hate it when liberals launch into tirades based on nothing but feelings and that distaste doesn’t lessen when it happens on the right.

            Point of fact is that the “liberal site” agrees with you, not me. They hate the program but grudgingly admit that under current law it is legal.

            Smith v. Maryland allowed the collection of this data BEFORE any crime has been adjudicated – that means on SUSPECTS and therefore potentially innocent people…and it has been so since 1979…the only difference today is the sheer volume of the data.

            I’m not using a liberal organizations analysis – it is the opinion of conservative lawyers like Andrew McCarthy and just about every DA in the United States apparently. As I pointed out, even Rand Paul agrees because he has sought to close the gap with law to beef up the 4th Amendment.

            I’m sorry – but you guys, including Texas need to do some research rather than just continually feeding it back to me that I have it wrong without evidence – if I am, it shouldn’t be too hard to show me how wrong I am since I’m alone on this side of the table. I have not seen any facts with legal weight brought to this discussion other than everybody saying that it is soooooo obvious that it violated the 4th Amendment. Continually posting the test of the Amendment changes nothing.I know what the words say…but I can also read and understand case law and court decisions and this is what it is. If it ain’t – cite me some case law that is on point to say that it is different – if it exists.

            Go read the post at Eugene Volokh’s site and see that it isn’t that simple. Volokh and the lawyers who post over there are some of the brightest and best of the originalist con-law guys.

            Show me, please, where it is illegal for a third party company to sell information accumulated in the course of their business to anyone, even to hand it over to the government…but I don’t think you will find it because I have been looking for a week and haven’t found it – I’ve actually found quite the opposite.

            I happen to agree that it is not what should be done – I’m not arguing in support of the program – I’m just telling you guys that if the program has operated as it is being described, it is legal – not right but legal.

            • I have done research… I read the case as I said. I have also read the Volokh site…..I don’t find them all to be Con-law guys and I don’t find them to be as comforting as you do. They simply seem to referee whether or not the “legal game” has been played with enough efficacy to stand upon legal precedent or not. Their tacit assumption is that every law ever passed is”Legal”….because it was passed.

              So I guess you and these “experts” are right …. it is legal for the Government to collect data on anyone at any time for any purpose…..it is “legal” for the President to kill who he chosses…as long as they are described Legally as a Terrorist ….and etc and etc.. On and On your “Legal” game goes…….the only thing NOT legal it seems is the Constitution.

              “Don,If I weren’t trying to be nicer I would tell you to screw yourself.”
              I do however appreciate your observance of civility ……. hyperbole can be an ugly thing when unchecked.

        • “Amendment IV
          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.”

          Is there something in the above sentence that is difficult to understand? If so, why? Just because a person; a lawyer; a politically connected individual who is “part of the political team in power”; is made a Judge; and says government action taken by that Judge’s “friends”; is “legal”; does not make the action “legal” in fact. Really. The action might be allowed. But in truth and reality, not legal, ie. Constitutional.

          If a lawyer is truly honest, independent, and on the side of “the People”, they will be “BORKed”.

          I would re-do some old research of mine and exhibit many, many, cases that were decided one way, with horrific consequences for individual Americans, later to be decided “un-Constitutional”, and vice versa. In all areas of our lives. Property takings, criminal punishment, etc.

          However, I believe, current decisions are so far gone, but for the “Heller 2nd amendment case” (which would be decided differently today) that it is simply much more forthright and honest to explain to Americans, in plain and simple language, with our own reason and common sense; and compare to the direct language in our founding documents.

          I have seen Supreme Court opinions, which I argued allowed me as a Prosecutor to take certain actions, later be reversed. Now what do I do? Can’t re-try that person. The person is spending the rest of his life in prison. Legally. But is the sentence still just? What now young “skywalker”? What now?

          Utah, I would ask you to re-consider your reliance on a statement, or arguement, a case, or line of cases, which clearly violate Constitutional and 4th amendment protections.

          IF “the general government” is not abiding by their own adopted “Robert’s Rules of Order”, the Constitution, for the simplest perfunctory actions; THEN “the general government” sure as hell isn’t following the Constitution in complicated matters either.

          • Show me the case law. You know yourself that even wrongly decided cases must be challenged to be vacated or changed – or Congress must rewrite the laws.Where has this been challenged? When?

            The ACLU is suing now.

            • Utah, Uggghhhhh, Really?

              Big picture my friend, big picture…. why you have picked up the sword of FISA, secret government action by an entity which does not follow their own rules, and a “court opinion” ?

              Why are you blind to our “founders vision” and reason and common sense? please step back, view the landscape…

              “It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” Miyamoto Musashi

              “Perceive that which cannot be seen with the eye.” Miyamoto Musashi, “A Book of Five Rings”, 1620

            • Don “gets it”:
              “So I guess you and these “experts” are right …. it is legal for the Government to collect data on anyone at any time for any purpose…..it is “legal” for the President to kill who he chosses…as long as they are described Legally as a Terrorist ….and etc and etc.. On and On your “Legal” game goes…….the only thing NOT legal it seems is the Constitution.”

    • Naw …. They can all just Hide at the IRS…Lois Lerner’s Office and SARA HALL INGRAM’s office….remember the Gal who will be and IS overseeing the IRS “management of ObamaCare.

      Nobody will find them there……or over at State…..since that Dept can literally “get away with Murder”…….or at the DOJ….they can all just hide in the Fast and Furious records office……..No problem, they’re safe……and NBC, CBS, and ABC as well as CNN, PBS and the entertainment Media will make sure they’re safe by shoving yet another Fabricated MidEast War on us…this time the “Syrians”.

  3. Guys – I’m done.

    I’m not discussing this any longer. I’ve clearly stated that I think the USA Patriot Act was bad law. I’ve also clearly stated that I think the NSA program is wrong. I don’t think it meets the test of the 4th Amendment – but the fact remains that none of us as individuals have authority over the NSA – they don’t respond to blogs, they respond to Congress and the courts.

    If I am wrong on the law, then so be it, I am ready to admit that I am wrong but in law, facts still trump feelings and no individual can walk up the steps to the mega-building in Bluffdale, Utah and order them to stop. There is a legal hierarchy that must be considered.

    I apparently can’t do this without pissing people off or getting upset myself, so I guess we wait for the ACLU to carry this through the courts to a conclusion.

    I’m done. If I say another word about this issue, you have permission to come over and kick my dogs.

    Last word.

  4. Ok everybody … let’s relax over a round of Scotch. 🙂

    Now I am not a legalese inclined person, but I did manage to find the Patriot Act in PDF form. Reading it however, is another story. But after reading it (Section 215), it would seem to my laymen eyes that everybody here has a point (see below). Let’s not forget that while we discuss the nuances of this law, we all remain on the side of liberty, and I haven’t seen anyone here support the NSA practices.

    I suppose like Utah said, the rest is up to the Courts to decide.

    Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:
    ‘‘(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investiga- tion to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intel- ligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
    ‘‘(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall—
    ‘‘(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor
    order); and
    ‘‘(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely
    upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    ‘‘(b) Each application under this section—
    ‘‘(1) shall be made to—
    ‘‘(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
    ‘‘(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter
    43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly des- ignated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
    VerDate 11-MAY-2000
    19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139
    PO 00056 Frm 00018 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
    115 STAT. 288
    PUBLIC LAW 107–56—OCT. 26, 2001
    ‘‘(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against inter- national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
    ‘‘(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
    judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applica- tion meets the requirements of this section.
    ‘‘(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
    ‘‘(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
    ‘‘(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
    ‘‘(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.
    ‘‘(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period—
    ‘‘(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
    ‘‘(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modi- fied, or denied.’’.

    • I actually am having serious doubts as to whether ALL are on the side of Liberty. The Courts and “the Law” do not represent Liberty.

    • Here is the problem Augger,

      The Supreme Court, in the “Obamacare” decision stated, “elections have consequences”. Honesty. Surprising really.

      In other words, the courts are going to allow Congress to do whatever it chooses. And if that means murdering US Citizens at the President’s decision, or creating surveillance files on every US citizen, then so be it. After all, the Constitution is a “living breathing document” and the founders could never have dreamed of the mobile phone and email.

      There is one little problem here, Communication and privacy are the same. Doesn’t matter if it happens in person or by letter. By phone or email. That simple sentence of the 4th amendment is, in fact, a simple procedure to follow.

      What does America do about it?

      We yell, and scream, from the hilltops, at our elected officials,
      “THIS IS ILLEGAL, CHANGE IT, OR WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT !” all the time. all the time. all the time.

      We inform our friends and neighbors to do the same.

      The courts are not going to enforce the Constitution and protect “the People”… They simply are not.

      The last thing “we” need to be advising anyone to do, is to sit and wait for the courts to “fix things”. America is where we are because of the Court’s dereliction of duty.

      To advise everyone to “calm down” this is legal until the Courts say it is illegal, is aiding and abetting the Government’s war on “the people”.

    • Biden didn’t, when it was Republicans, and now … well, lets just say that he was against it before he was for it. Such is, when dealing with mortal enemies … I suppose. So sad this administration is so punitive. Even worse, is that you make arguments in the form of flippant Cheney bashing for them, Steve.

  5. Pingback: NSA says it can listen to calls without a warrant « Musings of the Angry Webmaster

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.