OK, so we are supposed to not allow our government to listen in to cell data in order to possibility stop an attack? For people here to say that nothing has been stopped with this info is just BS. Sort of obvious that they have, as we have been told. Come on now...you cannot deny an obvious fact just to try and support your point of view. I agree it is not the best thing to have to do, however, we are at war and during war time, in order for our nation to survive, it may not be wrong to disobey the Constitution. It happened in the civil war. And of course the borders are priority, but the fact of the matter is that the terrorist cells are already here!
They are allowed to do so with a warrant.
What they’re doing now is vacuuming everything that is electronic communication and putting it into storage. Now, the way the mechanism works, they get a “warrant” (which we can go into later, because the secret court is now being found out to be nothing but a rubber stamp) and sort through their huge store of data to see what you’ve already said, and place a tap on what you’re doing now to see what you’re going to say.
For starters, this brings up ex post facto Constitutional issues.
For others, the only safety of people’s civil liberties is that someone gets a warrant to go through all the stored communications they’ve got. This is what Snowden really revealed - the data is already stored, a rougue sysadmin with the right privs can root through everything in that database with ease - no warrant required.
This is why the NSA is purging their ranks of sysadmins. But the system is still flawed from the Constitutional view: there should be no recording of innocent people’s data, absent a warrant. None. If they get a warrant, then they can start recording a target’s communications.
The Fourth amendment prohibits it.
Moreover, as Boston shows, there is no guarantee of such being effective: indeed, the Russians gave us intel/warnings on them which were ignored.
For people here to say that nothing has been stopped with this info is just BS.
Let's take a look at the recent debates in congress, the line was that the data/systems have been involved in [stopping] over fifty incidents. Now, since they are trying to justify the system, we have to realize that they're going to include the cases where the input was minimal/negligible (i.e. think the inverse of parallel construction
). — so it could be quite the case that the PRISM stuff has really uncovered five or six terrorist
plans.
Why terrorist
and not terrorist? Because the government has put out documents that label perfectly legitimate dissent from the statist mind as being a possible terrorist. Indeed, terrorist activities
have been expanded to the point where innocent people can be snapped up in the LEO/judicial system based on flimsy evidence. (The Hautree Militia, for example, which was to the militia movement what the Zimmerman-trial was to Stand Your Ground.)
Sort of obvious that they have, as we have been told. Come on now...you cannot deny an obvious fact just to try and support your point of view.
Actually it's not at all obvious: nothing the NSA and its secret court does is obvious or [really] open.
I agree it is not the best thing to have to do, however, we are at war and during war time, in order for our nation to survive, it may not be wrong to disobey the Constitution.
Here's the problem with that idea: the War on Terror, which I assume you're referring to, is unwinnable.
Why? — Because there is no victory condition
.
Moreover, your argument that disobeying the Constitution might be fine is laughable on its face: if it is ok to ignore the Constitution, then it is ok to ignore any [and all] other laws precisely because they are inferior to the Constitution and, if actual laws (as opposed to usurped power) then they derive their authority from the Constitution. Thus, to violate the Constitution is to declare that the lesser laws have no meaning/power/authority.
It happened in the civil war.
So? Does precedent make it right? — If I kurder someone, and get away with it
, then does that mean that it's a-ok to murder?
Ridiculous.
And of course the borders are priority, but the fact of the matter is that the terrorist cells are already here!
WTF? The borders are a priority? What country have you been living in? Certainly not the United States, because the borders have never [in the past decade, maybe two] been a priority of the ruling caste.
I think you ought to read this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3053569/posts?page=60#60
“I have no problem with the NSA collecting data on foreigners abroad and then getting warrants on each and every communication with that foreigner. I have no problem with communication companies storing the data and when given a proper warrant from the government, the company giving that private citizens' communications to the government.”
I am sick and tired of people like you allowing the government to search my fellow Americans by the hundreds of millions without probable clause and a warrant. Shame on you.