Posted on 02/02/2018 7:05:18 PM PST by son of terrence
WASHINGTON A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its surveillance on domestic soil, including a program that is collecting tens of thousands of domestic e-mails and other Internet communications of Americans each year, according to a secret ruling made public on Wednesday.
The 85-page ruling by Judge John D. Bates, then serving as chief judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, involved an N.S.A. program that systematically searches the contents of Americans international Internet communications, without a warrant, in a hunt for discussions about foreigners who have been targeted for surveillance.
The Justice Department had told Judge Bates that N.S.A. officials had discovered that the program had also been gathering domestic messages for three years. Judge Bates found that the agency had violated the Constitution and declared the problems part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court.
The release of the ruling, the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, was the latest effort by the Obama administration to gain control over revelations about N.S.A. surveillance prompted by leaks by the former agency contractor Edward J. Snowden.
The collection is part of a broader program under a 2008 law that allows warrantless surveillance on domestic networks as long as it is targeted at noncitizens abroad. The purely domestic messages collected in the hunt for discussions about targeted foreigners represent a relatively small percentage of what the ruling said were 250 million communications intercepted each year in that broader program.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It’s about our losses of privacy and rights.
[ Secret court. Thats the problem. ]
Secret Courts, Always A PROBLEM!
The NY Slimes of course calls out the NSA right off the bat. Ill leave at as an excerise for the readers to figure out why. /hint: they are not the FBI or CIA
A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its surveillance on domestic soil....
That’s it folks.
The best we can hope for is a sharply worded letter from the court.
No one will be prosecuted....
hmmm...right about the time John Boehner got to take that big gavel away from Pelosi and Obamaugabe became a lame duck after just his first 2 years. Maybe we should be taking another look at the 2012 election and see what shenanigan were played there, too
Amazing that Democrats still bow to the Clintons and Barry, given that the Party suffered the biggest losses in history under their regimes.
I reckon all of the FBI files they illegally possess aren't all limited to Republicans
I wonder if it dawned on the NYT who was “President” from 2011 until about a year ago? Where is the corresponding criticism of those who led the majority of the abuses.
By the way, are there any RECENT allegations (other than those in the memo) about FISA abuses by THIS administration?
Until then, I think I speak for most on here, NYT: GO TO HELL.
Just what I was thinking.
Just imagine, if in 2007-2008 if than President George W Bush and his FBI went to the FISA court and ordered surveillance on Barack Obama..what the reaction of this same Commie media would be..they would have burned the streets down but since its Donald Trump, someone they DESPISE, someone they wish had never become President, its all good they could care less
Nice try NYT. But in this new the rules were broken in an attempt to win a Presidential election, and then overturn a Presidential election. Makes Watergate look like a boyscout meeting.
You mean the same Fondling harassing girl drowning ASSHOLE that OPENLY contacted the ACTUAL DAMNED RUSSIANS IN 1984 for healp in trying to take out Ronald Reagan, that TED *#*&###&*# KENNEDY!
And now due to the fact that a FISA warrant can be approved via a #*#*#!!! NEWS ARTICLE!
So does this mean ANYONE can have a FISA started against them for THE REASON STATED ABOVE????
An old article....
If they grant 99.98% they must not ask many questions
Seems they only check if any of the evidence has been sourced by Yahoo News. If so, green light.
“hmmm...right about the time John Boehner got to take that big gavel away from Pelosi and Obamaugabe became a lame duck after just his first 2 years. Maybe we should be taking another look at the 2012 election and see what shenanigan were played there, too”
I still remember some of the pictures of the final days leading up to the 2012 election. Zero with tiny audiences at his rallies. A lot like Hitlery’s audiences.
Romney was a terrible candidate but I still wonder if the vote totals were legit in the light of what we are seeing revealed everyday as the FBI/DOJ corruption gets exposed.
Sure! Everybody abuses FISA warrants! No big deal.
So it must be OK with the NYT if Trump does the same .
Nice try Times but NO SALE to anyone with half a brain.
...but since it was under Obama (who we like) that was fine and this is just the Trumpster and all those fly-over deplorables whining because they don’t like being watched by us...I mean them... it’s for the safety of us all...
What doya think - could I pass for a NYT editor?
NYT wrote those articles when it happened but never followed up or pressured about what actions were being taken place because “THEIR PEOPLE” were in charge... let’s see how fast they spin that dime now..
Hey democratics. Who are you planning to run for office in 2020? The Republicans need to know so they can spy on them and lay out a plan to frame them for crimes they didn’t commit.
Tit for tat, bitches supporting bitches!
Really? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure if that is true or not without facts. What we do know is there was FISA abuse as described by the Nunes memo. What I want to see now is action taken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.