Clash of Opinions: Judge rules NSA spying legal, not 'Orwellian'

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Dec 27, 2013.

  1. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Apr 11, 2013
    Likes Received:
    I've got mixed reactions to this. President Bush used the data sparingly, acting only on additionally confirmed information, and he ordered NSA to store the records swept up off-site, so they had to get a court order to go back to the data at a later time. Great Pretender rescinded that order, and NSA keeps all the information on-site, where it is free to look at it at any time, even if it isn't looking for something specific.

    I agree with Judge Pauley that the collection of foreign intelligence by this method is essential. But when the NSA can keep the data on-site, peruse it at any time, and make connections to anyone about anything, they've crossed the line. We need to go back to the way GWB was doing things.

    In fact, we need to impeach the Ignoble Traitor in the White House.
    #1 thisnumbersdisconnected, Dec 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2013
  2. poncho

    Expand Collapse

    Mar 30, 2004
    Likes Received:
    That's some nice spin TND but the fact is the neocons wanted very much to set up a "Total Information Awareness" system. Congress stepped in and "allegedly" put a stop to funding it.

    The neocons not to be thwarted by any act of congress simply changed the name of their massive high tech illegal total surveillance grid and funded it's creation by other means. SEE THIS and THIS

    Obama just took what the neocons built and kept it all sort of secret until Edward Snowden blew the whistle on it.

    Why do we need a person in a black robe to "interpret" the plain English of the fourth amendment anyway?

    Here's is the text itself.

    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.

    It's self explanatory there's no need for a federal interpreter the tell us what it plainly says. All these black robed interpreters do is twist the meaning of words around to justify the obviously unconstitutional acts of a government that is constantly seeking ways to grant itself more power.
    #2 poncho, Dec 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2013

Share This Page