NSA Loses Authority To Collect Phone Records As Senate Adjourns

Breitbart.com ^ | June 1, 2015 | Breitbart News

[Biggirl]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Security Agency lost its authority at midnight to collect Americans’ phone records in bulk, after GOP Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stood in the way of extending the fiercely contested program in an extraordinary Sunday Senate session.

[cripplecreek]

He would be a lot more effective at speaking out on the fact that our government itself is creating the justification for domestic spying by importing muslims and leaving our border wide open.

[Lady Heron]

Bingo

[Politicalkiddo]

That’ll stop them. /s

[WayneS]

So they'll continue doing it without "authority". The federal government lacks the authority for about 75% of the everything thing it does.

[cuban leaf]

Big F’ing deal. Now they’ll just go back to collecting any data they want illegally.

---

I’ve got to ask, what do you think would have been the best and most practical decision beyond making it illegal?

You can only do so much - legally. This is an excellent start.

[Redmen4ever]

According to the 2nd Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, NSA never had this authority. Congress did not authorize this in the original Patriot Act nor its extension. We - the people of the U.S. and most of our Congressmen (other than the Chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committee) - only found out about this because of Edward Snowden.

[Mycroft Holmes]

It would be nice if not only the "little people" were bound by law.

	Freedom ≠ Free Stuff☭
	I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /.
Mash Dobbshead® for HTML, bop Hello_Cthlhu for XAMPP

[ASA Vet]

to enact Marshall Law so doesn’t have to leave office....

The US Marshals Service is part of the Executive Branch. Why would US Marshals take over government in order to keep the same boss? Are there enough of them to actually be able to do so?

Martial law would seem to be the opposite of what dictator Ocommie wants. He wants full control, not to be removed from power by the military.

[servantboy777]

YEAH!!

It’s called probable cause. It’s called the constitution.

Hopefully now, they will craft policy that allows intelligence to do it’s job and not treat American citizens as suspects.

Big win for the constitution. Thank you Senator Paul.

[servantboy777]

>>Big F’ing deal. Now they’ll just go back to collecting any data they want illegally<<

Illegally...yep, it's a big deal. Do we have a rule of law or not?

Are American citizen to abide by the law, yet our leaders do not?

This is the makings of tyranny. Sounds like a cliche, but if one was to interview Russian citizens, just the average working class folks over in Russia during the communist Soviet Union what they felt about citizen surveillance...bet’cha you'd get a consensus that it scared the hell into them.

[Drew68]

So what happens to this place?

[muir_redwoods]

Sure but we had this protection back when the 4th amendment was still the law.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

“So what happens to this place?”
_______________________________________

Nuke it.

[CPT Clay]

Dear NSA,
Please read the constitution not my e mails.
Sincerely,
CPTClay

[Cboldt]

-- They'll find another way to do the same thing, just give them time. --

They don't need any time. All the legal pieces are in place, the government argues that it has the inherent authority to eavesdrop. As long as it doesn't use the information in court, there is no violation of the constitution; and even in court, if the snooping touches on foreign intelligence, it is outside of the "requirement" (cough cough) to get a particularized warrant.

The point of the statute is simply to get Congress's sense on the record, for what that is worth (the judges do what they will anyway, statutes are just a mess of words to talk around, interpret and otherwise address while rendering the judicially desired outcome).

There is also the judicially-created "special needs" doctrine for circumventing the 4th amendment, it too needs no statute for support.

Ultimately, the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not defined by the public, it is defined by courts. Courts serve the government first, the people second.

[Cboldt]

-- Hopefully now, they will craft policy that allows intelligence to do it's job and not treat American citizens as suspects. --

The surveillance protocol depends on obtaining information relating to roughly "everybody," but the government argues that this does not make anybody a suspect. The reason everybody's communication patterns is necessary, is that "suspicious" activity is defined as deviation from "normal" activity, and without a body of "normal" activity, there is no way to discern the "suspicious" stuff.

Whether that makes you feel like a suspect is personal to you. I'm personally offended by the surveillance, but there is absolutely nothing that I can do to have it curtailed.

[Valin]

I hope you’re right...but I suspect you’re wrong.

[Valin]

It’s not really about this administration.

[Delta 21]

Looks like a good place to store archived military records, since the one in St. Louis keeps burning down.

[i_robot73]

Funny how most here are so disillusioned by Congress, that when ONE, and one of those ‘nasty’ (L), HEAVEN forbid, shows what’s what...they still attack the messenger.

Bitch: “Nobody does nothing about our Freedom/Liberty”
Rand : Spotlight in the darkness...
Reply: “Well, now he’s just grand-standing” or “Like that’ll do anything”

Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways, folks. Whom ELSE is standing up with the man? Or are you just there to complain?