Quite the little country we're becoming.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 9:19am.

WOW, it looks like we have overarching gubment at all levels and/or who have the (dangerous) "power of subpoena" without any arrests already made.

Just, wow.

Now I know why I don't use the Chrome browser, don't engage in social networking, opted out of all e-mail lists, set my browsers and shopping lists to "private," heavily control online "cookies," opted out of junk snail mail, keep my nos updated on the "Do Not Call" registry and have always had an unlisted phone number.

What happened? Did Fourth Amendment rights fly out the window?

I don't have any Big Brothers, don't need any and don't want any ... for good reason.

Submitted by SD Realtor on May 14, 2013 - 9:22am.

Stop worrying about it nsr, obviously it is a non story.

Submitted by all on May 14, 2013 - 10:00am.

bearishgurl wrote:

I don't have any Big Brothers, don't need any and don't want any ... for good reason.

That sound suspicious. You got something to hide?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 14, 2013 - 10:37am.

And now, some light George Orwell to brighten your day:

"In a time of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

The last line of "1984": "He loved Big Brother."

Welcome to The Machine.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 10:51am.

all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

I don't have any Big Brothers, don't need any and don't want any ... for good reason.

That sound suspicious. You got something to hide?

No, craptcha.

I just believe that a law-abiding American citzen has a right to privacy.

I'm particularly disturbed about the journalists' phone records being subpeonaed by the CIA in the absence of any arrests.

It looks like I'm not the only one.

If journalists had to be constantly worried about the confidentiality of their sources, the American public would never get any "truthful" information. We would have access only to the "propaganda" shown to the public in Communist countries or those countries with otherwise corrupt regimes.

Submitted by SD Realtor on May 14, 2013 - 10:57am.

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 .

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 14, 2013 - 11:01am.

SD Realtor wrote:
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 .

IMHO, the important part of the story is the top of the IRS knew about the targeting while testifying 6 months before the election...

More troubling is as BG notes, whether Fast and Furious or just local cops giving a beat down, our Government at all levels, across all parties is appearing to do whatever they want, however they want and the lie about it however they need to.

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 11:06am.

SD Realtor wrote:
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 .

Probably a louder response. But for the most part, there aren't many defending the IRS on this one. I don't think it's scandal worthy. By all appearance, it was initiated at pretty low levels, and was a very serious mistake in judgment. (I don't think the motivation was political, but it was horribly misguided.) I'm still a little unclear on the possible lying to congress, and who exactly knew what and when. If it happened, I'm all for firing anyone from the IRS involved in lying to congress.

Submitted by all on May 14, 2013 - 1:25pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

I just believe that a law-abiding American citzen has a right to privacy.

Right. But how do we know you are a law-abiding citizen without investigating you?

bearishgurl wrote:

I'm particularly disturbed about the journalists' phone records being subpeonaed by the CIA in the absence of any arrests.

Don't be. The CIA did not subpoena AP journalists' phone records, so it's all good. And it's never too late for an arrest.

bearishgurl wrote:

We would have access only to the "propaganda" shown to the public in Communist countries or those countries with otherwise corrupt regimes.

Of course, you know the people in Communist countries have access to nothing but "propaganda" because you spent so much time there. Oh, wait, no, it's because you read it in the last year's edition of CIA world factbook.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 2:02pm.

bearishgurl][quote=all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
I just believe that a law-abiding American citzen has a right to privacy.
Right. But how do we know you are a law-abiding citizen without investigating you?

Well, craptcha, I doubt any of us have spent much time in communist countries. But we don't have to to know what the (gubment-controlled) media tells their public ("measured," of course) in those regimes.

In the US, a prospective employer cannot even "investigate" a job candidate (beyond easily-obtainable local public record) without a full release signed by the candidate. Even past employers of a candidate will say NOTHING beyond dates of tenure to a prospective employer without seeing (and comparing) the candidate's signature on a release. If a job candidate has limited access to their social networking page, a prospective employer cannot see it without the owner's consent, i.e. he/she has to "friend" them to grant them access.

all wrote:
beearishgurl wrote:
I'm particularly disturbed about the journalists' phone records being subpeonaed by the CIA in the absence of any arrests.
Don't be. The CIA did not subpoena AP journalists' phone records, so it's all good. ....

craptcha, that's not what it says here, posted a little over an hour ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/associated-press-s...

Atty General Holder "recused himself" from the subpoena by fobbing the dirty job off onto one of his lackeys. He even tried to justify it to an outraged citizenry and Congress:

. . . "It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole," he said. "It put the American people at risk. And trying to determine who was responsible for that I think required very aggressive action."

The AP has said it was informed last Friday that the Justice Department had gathered records for more than 20 phone lines assigned to the news agency and its reporters.

The records covered April and May of last year, and were obtained earlier this year, the AP said.

It described the seizures as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt said in a letter sent to Holder on Monday.

Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, told reporters at the Capitol, "I have trouble defending what the Justice Department did, in ... looking at AP."

"I don't know who did it, why it was done, but it's inexcusable, and there is no way to justify this," Reid said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Tuesday that President Barack Obama sought to balance support for a free press with the need to investigate leaks of classified information.

"The president believes that the press as a rule needs to have an unfettered ability to pursue investigative journalism," Carney told a news briefing.

"He is also committed, as president and as a citizen, to the proposition that we cannot allow classified information, that can do harm to our national security interests or do harm to individuals, to be leaked," Carney said.

Carney reiterated that the White House was not involved in the decision to seize the AP records.

(emphasis added)

The White House (Pres Obama) tried to appear to support the Fourth Amendment whilst straddling the fence.

Submitted by all on May 14, 2013 - 2:02pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
But we don't have to to know what the (gubment-controlled) media tells their public ("measured," of course) in those regimes.

So all you know about the said (communist or Communist?) countries comes from the domestic media, which is naturally free of any commercial and government control?

all wrote:
Don't be. The CIA did not subpoena AP journalists' phone records, so it's all good. ....

bearishgurl wrote:

craptcha, that's not what it says here, posted a little over an hour ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/associated-press-s...

And the article says CIA issued the subpoena?

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 2:08pm.

all wrote:
And the article says CIA issued the subpoena?

craptcha WHO do you think is the "subpeonaing body" for the "Justice Dept?" Might it be the US Attorney General? Isn't the CIA part of the Justice Dept?? If not, which Department is it under and does the US Atty General work for them? Did you think the CIA had subpoena powers on their own? Isn't that what Holder's office is for?

Submitted by all on May 14, 2013 - 3:25pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Isn't the CIA part of the Justice Dept??

No.
It does disseminate justice, but it is not a part of the Department of Justice.

bearishgurl wrote:

If not, which Department is it under...

CIA is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence.

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the United States government official – subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President.

bearishgurl wrote:

... and does the US Atty General work for them?

AG does not report to the Director of National Intelligence, no.

bearishgurl wrote:

Did you think the CIA had subpoena powers on their own?

I don't know. Maybe it does, maybe it does not. In this particular case it was not the CIA.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 4:06pm.

all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Isn't the CIA part of the Justice Dept??

No.
It does disseminate justice, but it is not a part of the Department of Justice.

bearishgurl wrote:

If not, which Department is it under...

CIA is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence.

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the United States government official – subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President.

bearishgurl wrote:

... and does the US Atty General work for them?

AG does not report to the Director of National Intelligence, no.

bearishgurl wrote:

Did you think the CIA had subpoena powers on their own?

I don't know. Maybe it does, maybe it does not. In this particular case it was not the CIA.

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.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 14, 2013 - 4:20pm.

BG: 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.

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 14, 2013 - 4:21pm.

I'm guessing the words "Patriot Act" played a role.

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 4:32pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

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.

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 4:33pm.

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 14, 2013 - 4:38pm.

SK in CV wrote:
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.

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?

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 4:47pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
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.

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.

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 4:51pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

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?

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.

Submitted by earlyretirement on May 14, 2013 - 5:10pm.

Yes, 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.

Submitted by CA renter on May 14, 2013 - 5:17pm.

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_warrant...
.....

It's just an "accident" when they tap phone lines of American citizens or residents who might be "domestic terrorists."

Submitted by CA renter on May 14, 2013 - 5:18pm.

This 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."

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 5:19pm.

CA renter wrote:
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_warrant...
.....

It's just an "accident" when they tap phone lines of American citizens or residents who might be "domestic terrorists."

This particular incident has nothing to do with wiretaps. Only phone records.

Submitted by CA renter on May 14, 2013 - 5:42pm.

SK,

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politi...

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 5:51pm.

CA renter wrote:
SK,

That's not how I understand it.

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.

Submitted by Mark Holmes on May 14, 2013 - 6:32pm.

"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...

Submitted by CA renter on May 14, 2013 - 6:43pm.

SK in CV wrote:
CA renter wrote:
SK,

That's not how I understand it.

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.

Okay, the confusion stems from the fact that I was referring to the phone-tapping scandal that happened under Bush in the early 2000s. Just pointing out that the government's tapping into phone calls, phone records, etc. without warrants isn't new.

And yes, I fully believe that all of our electronic communications are being stored. Why else would our "flat-broke" government be building this? Nice to know we don't have money for education, healthcare, and other services that would benefit society; but we never hear about there being a lack of money for spying, drones, data centers, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_C...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.