Obama Defends NSA Phone, Internet Sur...

Obama Defends NSA Phone, Internet Surveillance

There are 156 comments on the Wall Street Journal story from Jun 8, 2013, titled Obama Defends NSA Phone, Internet Surveillance. In it, Wall Street Journal reports that:

Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com President Barack Obama , in a rare public acknowledgment of secret efforts to combat ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wall Street Journal.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#52 Jun 8, 2013
Cancel All Washington DC vacations until further notice.
http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/gD8M...

“To contract new debts...”

Since: Apr 08

is not the way to pay old ones

#53 Jun 8, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is, he never stated he expanded the un "Patriot Act".
Teabaggers did.
Of course he never admitted to expanding the Patriot act, Barry is a douchebag, not an idiot. In reality, he has reaffirmed the Patriot Act more than once despite bipartisan calls for increased oversight including that by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#54 Jun 8, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
"Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program
John Byrne
Published: Tuesday April 7, 2009
In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.
In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush.
Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF)."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Admin...
A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote.

That's it?

He "expanded" it by using a clause already there?

Definition of EXPAND

transitive verb

1

: to open up : unfold

2

: to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of : enlarge

3

a : to express at length or in greater detail

b : to write out in full <expand all abbreviations>

c : to subject to mathematical expansion <expand a function in a power series>

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expand
ALICIA BANKS

Sherwood, AR

#55 Jun 8, 2013
more proof that hobama is worse than gwb
shame!!!!!!!
http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/773183566/hobama...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#56 Jun 8, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
To the misguided who see "outrage"
No outrage. Just fact.
Obama duped the left. Now they have to somehow support a program that they went nutso over when it involved callers from the US to overseas numbers, but now is exposed to include tens of millions plus severs and engines.
If anything, amusement, not at the spying, but at those who must now try to embrace it.
Unlike teabaggers there is no "false" outrage.

Hated it then.

Hate it now.

"now is exposed to include tens of millions plus severs and engines".

No, it was exposed almost a decade ago.

Monday, December 19, 2005

President Bush said Monday it was a "shameful act" for someone to disclose that he has secretly allowed anti-terrorism wiretaps and e-mail intercepts without court orders and warned that planned congressional hearings into the eavesdropping would assist America's terrorist enemies.

At a White House press conference, Bush also assailed senators who have held up renewal of 16 provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire on Dec. 31 over civil liberties concerns, warning that "we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

The two issues have melded together ever since the New York Times disclosed last Friday that since 2002, Bush has repeatedly authorized the super-secret National Security Agency to intercept communications between people in this country and others abroad without following usual procedures for getting a court order. Some senators cited the newspaper report in voting last Friday to hold up the Patriot Act renewal unless it included some civil liberties guarantees that the House had balked at.

"My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," said Bush.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#57 Jun 8, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote.
That's it?
He "expanded" it by using a clause already there?
Definition of EXPAND
transitive verb
1
: to open up : unfold
2
: to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of : enlarge
3
a : to express at length or in greater detail
b : to write out in full <expand all abbreviations>
c : to subject to mathematical expansion <expand a function in a power series>
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expand
You missed the immediately preceding paragraph.....

"For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar."

"EVEN IF THERE WAS INTENTIONAL VIOLATION"

"They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223--it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, see an old write-up of mine at: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php --but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes"

You might want to retread the Raw Story, not Fox, not Hot Air, but good old self described progressive Raw Story article. And then read the PDF re: actual filing linked in the article.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#58 Jun 8, 2013
Hopefully, there was no "willful" attempt to mislead readers here....
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#59 Jun 8, 2013
Hunglo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he never admitted to expanding the Patriot act, Barry is a douchebag, not an idiot. In reality, he has reaffirmed the Patriot Act more than once despite bipartisan calls for increased oversight including that by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
"Of course he never admitted to expanding the Patriot act".

Because he didn't.

"Increased oversight"?

No one has called for a repeal?

Which needs to be done.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#60 Jun 8, 2013
He expanded it to disallow any recourse even if the Feds know what their doing is illegal.

That should stir some outrage. It did to me when I first read it in 2009. The left has been silent on this. I'm hoping with the new revelations this will also be reviewed.

"Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation.

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday."

It took Obama about three months to tell Americans his guys could willfully act illegally against them, and Americans would have no recourse.

Feel duped yet by the Constitutional law expert?
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#61 Jun 8, 2013
Hunglo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he never admitted to expanding the Patriot act, Barry is a douchebag, not an idiot. In reality, he has reaffirmed the Patriot Act more than once despite bipartisan calls for increased oversight including that by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Another man from the "hood" who is full of it. He answers to something else. But the good news is, he's no Uncle Tom! We can't have that. That African Americans would do their part to bring America into a totalitarian system is ingenious by the elitists of the new world order. Think about it. You can't say a word about practically any one of them in anything questionable or unless in a benign way acceptable to them or the charges of racist and threats of violence are broadcast throughout the shadow covered land. And in the end they will be one of the groups that suffer worse then everyone else. So I ask again. Please get accountability from you politicians. Some Repubs have tried and are called haters and dumb names and everything else. Oh well. I wonder what is next to move us closer to the federal Camp game.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#62 Jun 8, 2013
The Patriot Act of 2001 signed into law
by President George W. Bush with 211 Republican
members of the House voting "yes" and 3 voting "no."

In the Senate all Republican members voted "yes".

Bush and the Republicans made the Patriot Act
what it is today.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#63 Jun 8, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the immediately preceding paragraph.....
"For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar."
"EVEN IF THERE WAS INTENTIONAL VIOLATION"
"They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223--it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, see an old write-up of mine at: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php --but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes"
You might want to retread the Raw Story, not Fox, not Hot Air, but good old self described progressive Raw Story article. And then read the PDF re: actual filing linked in the article.
In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.

Section 223 is a unique PATRIOT provision in that, originally, most privacy and civil liberties organizations supported it without reservation: the ACLU has called it a "pro-privacy provision that provides a civil remedy for unlawful surveillance," the Center for Democracy and Technology deems it (PDF) uncontroversial, and even we sang its praises in a previous version of this analysis. But upon further examination we've come to our senses and recognized Section 223 for what it truly is: a legislative trojan horse. The few checks and balances that 223 obviously added to the law blinded us to the ones it subtly removed. The end result is an amendment to the law that actually made it much harder to sue the federal government for illegally wiretapping your communications or accessing private stored communications like your voice mail and email.

Big deal you can't sue them.

That's it?

That's the big "expansion" problem teabaggers are whining about?

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#64 Jun 8, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike teabaggers there is no "false" outrage.
Hated it then.
Hate it now.
"now is exposed to include tens of millions plus severs and engines".
No, it was exposed almost a decade ago.
Monday, December 19, 2005
President Bush said Monday it was a "shameful act" for someone to disclose that he has secretly allowed anti-terrorism wiretaps and e-mail intercepts without court orders and warned that planned congressional hearings into the eavesdropping would assist America's terrorist enemies.
At a White House press conference, Bush also assailed senators who have held up renewal of 16 provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire on Dec. 31 over civil liberties concerns, warning that "we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."
The two issues have melded together ever since the New York Times disclosed last Friday that since 2002, Bush has repeatedly authorized the super-secret National Security Agency to intercept communications between people in this country and others abroad without following usual procedures for getting a court order. Some senators cited the newspaper report in voting last Friday to hold up the Patriot Act renewal unless it included some civil liberties guarantees that the House had balked at.
"My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," said Bush.
Source?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#65 Jun 8, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
He expanded it to disallow any recourse even if the Feds know what their doing is illegal.
That should stir some outrage. It did to me when I first read it in 2009. The left has been silent on this. I'm hoping with the new revelations this will also be reviewed.
"Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation.
"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday."
It took Obama about three months to tell Americans his guys could willfully act illegally against them, and Americans would have no recourse.
Feel duped yet by the Constitutional law expert?
"The Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday."

So you have no problem with them intercepting all your communication, since 2001.

You have problem about being able to sue them.

WOW.

That's crazy.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#66 Jun 8, 2013
Gary wrote:
The Patriot Act of 2001 signed into law
by President George W. Bush with 211 Republican
members of the House voting "yes" and 3 voting "no."
In the Senate all Republican members voted "yes".
Bush and the Republicans made the Patriot Act
what it is today.
What are we in repeat mode? There were many Repubs who were disgusted by that and other losses of rights. Many changed their vote in 2004. But now we are in 2013 and we see expansions of our loss of rights. Now get with the program and get responses from your politicians and lets start to end this. One other thing. the original tea party agenda had this as a goal. It was obliterated and destroyed by all sides and we ended up with a lot of false tea party people. The tea party wasn't chartered by its voters to give part of a loaf of bread. We see the Repub liars everyday. You guys haven't even started to admit to Dem liars in Washington. And they are there in droves.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#67 Jun 8, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
<quoted text>
Source?
Yours.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#68 Jun 8, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.
Section 223 is a unique PATRIOT provision in that, originally, most privacy and civil liberties organizations supported it without reservation: the ACLU has called it a "pro-privacy provision that provides a civil remedy for unlawful surveillance," the Center for Democracy and Technology deems it (PDF) uncontroversial, and even we sang its praises in a previous version of this analysis. But upon further examination we've come to our senses and recognized Section 223 for what it truly is: a legislative trojan horse. The few checks and balances that 223 obviously added to the law blinded us to the ones it subtly removed. The end result is an amendment to the law that actually made it much harder to sue the federal government for illegally wiretapping your communications or accessing private stored communications like your voice mail and email.
Big deal you can't sue them.
That's it?
That's the big "expansion" problem teabaggers are whining about?
They can't be sued even if their action is willfully, that is with full knowledge, what they're doing is illegal.

You don't have a problem with that?

I told you I found the position Obama has chained the left to amuses me.
drinK the Hive

New York, NY

#69 Jun 8, 2013

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#70 Jun 8, 2013
The Mission and Vision of the Homeland Security Department was not expanded after two passenger aircraft were flown into the Towers of New York City, it was opened with a tractor trailer by the current administration.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#71 Jun 8, 2013
Aprilvue wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't be sued even if their action is willfully, that is with full knowledge, what they're doing is illegal.
You don't have a problem with that?
I told you I found the position Obama has chained the left to amuses me.
You seem to have a problem comprehending your own links.

A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States,"

If they intentionally disclose your e mail, you can sue them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Privacy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Columbus schools' chief sent special team into ... 11 hr Big Johnson 3
News New Hong Kong identity card will be smarter and... (Jan '15) May '16 Anonymous 3
News Residents have privacy rights with garbage May '16 criminally insane 7
News NY senator: 'Spying billboards' may violate pri... May '16 Three Days 1
News "Spying billboards" under fire for using phone ... May '16 Hostis Publicus 2
News Staff slipups on patient privacy can get doctor... Apr '16 Sheri Ann 1
News Senate bill draft would prohibit unbreakable en... Apr '16 Synque 9
More from around the web