NSA’s Spying On Americans Must Stop
Under laws that have been held to be
both unconstitutional and constitutional by two different courts, the NSA can
obtain surveillance orders with no articulated suspicion about those to be
spied upon, even though the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause, a
high level of individualized suspicion.
Basically, as an example, the NSA can
tell a FISA judge that two thugs in area code 708 are chatting with five jerks
in area code 312, and they are all texting six malcontents in area code 630.
The NSA knows who they are and where
they are, but instead of going to Chicago (and/or one if its suburbs) and
following them and investigating them, instead of asking for a search warrant
to spy just on them, the NSA wants a warrant to spy on everyone in those area
codes.
In September [of 2013], The Guardian
newspaper reported that the NSA shares raw, unfiltered information it
has gathered with some foreign nations, including England and Israel. It also
reported that the NSA shares this raw data with its boss: President
Obama.
January 13, 2014 – Bloomberg News
Reports:
“The nonprofit New America Foundation,
based in Washington, analyzed cases involving 225 people recruited by al-Qaeda
or other terrorist groups and charged in the U.S. since the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. The majority of cases started with traditional techniques, such as use
of “informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence
operations,” according to a report today from the group, which has been
critical of the NSA spy programs. “Our
investigation found that bulk collection of American phone metadata has
had no discernible impact on preventing
acts of terrorism and only the most marginal of impacts on preventing
terrorist-related activity, such as fundraising for a terrorist group,” Peter
Bergen, director of the foundation’s national security program, said in a
statement.”
January 23, 2014 - National News
Agencies Reported:
“The White House disputed the findings
of an independent review board that said the National Security Agency's mass
data collection program is illegal and should be ended, indicating the
administration. The White House was
responding to a scathing report from The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board (PCLOB), which said the program ran afoul of the law on several fronts:
"The ... bulk telephone records
program lacks a viable legal foundation," the board's report said, adding
that it raises "serious threats to privacy and civil liberties" and
has "only limited value." The report, further, said the NSA should
"purge" the files.
The report concluded that the NSA
collection raises "constitutional concerns" with regard to U.S.
citizens' rights of speech, association and privacy.
"The connections revealed by the
extensive database of telephone records gathered under the program will
necessarily include relationships established among individuals and groups for
political, religious, and other expressive purposes," it said.
"Compelled disclosure to the government of information revealing these
associations can have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment
rights."”
If
You’re Wondering, Like ObamaCare, If Congress Is Excluded From The NSA’s
Spying… Well They’re Not!
As Reported January 9, 2014:
“Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders,
(I-Vt.), wrote to Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security
Administration (NSA), and asked plainly whether the NSA has been or is now
spying on members of Congress or other public officials. Well, it wasn’t exactly silence, but rather a
refusal to answer a simple question. The NSA did reply to Sanders by stating --
in an absurd oxymoron – ‘that members of
Congress receive the same constitutional protections as other Americans: that
is to say, none from the NSA.’”
WCFN: As a voice for the people, our U.S. Congressmen should be listening to constituents and fighting the President on this controversial and unconstitutional program.
As CNN reported: ‘What has been remarkable is how Democrats have expressed little opposition to the surveillance program. Many Democrats have simply remained silent as these revelations have emerged while others, like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, have openly defended the program. President Barack Obama, while initially acknowledging the need for a proper balance between civil liberties and national security, has increasingly focused on defending the government. Equally notable has been how silent many liberals, who once railed against Bush for similar activities, have become in recent years. Where is the outrage? Where has the Democratic opposition gone? Part of the story simply has to do with political hypocrisy.'”
