Obama Administration: FBI can get phone records without oversight

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 5:03 AM GMT
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/11/108562/obama-assertion-fbi-can-get-phone.html

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's Justice Department has asserted that the FBI can obtain telephone records of international calls made from the U.S. without any formal legal process or court oversight, according to a document obtained by McClatchy.

    That assertion was revealed — perhaps inadvertently — by the department in its response to a McClatchy request for a copy of a secret Justice Department memo.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 12, 2011 10:59 AM GMT
    Channeling Church Lady from SNL

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc8S3_HSSk5WoDCFMe04n

    FBI gaining access to phone records
    I wonder who could it be who started that
    Could it be

    Kim Kardashian? .... No

    Phil Donohue? ..... No

    Could it be ..... BUSH ????

    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 2:26 PM GMT
    GQjock saidChanneling Church Lady from SNL

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc8S3_HSSk5WoDCFMe04n

    FBI gaining access to phone records
    I wonder who could it be who started that
    Could it be

    Kim Kardashian? .... No

    Phil Donohue? ..... No

    Could it be ..... BUSH ????

    icon_cool.gif


    For clarification, I don't know if this is the case that it was started under Bush but are you saying that Obama's defense of the policy because of Bush gives him a pass and also makes the policy legitimate?

    I really don't get the partisanship on issues - and that's why I personally don't affiliate myself with any political party. Parties say and do stupid things - it'd be refreshing if people started to think for themselves - and I do find this lemming like mentality tends to be far more prevalent amongst those who I know (which admittedly is overwhelmingly educated, white and liberal) who identify themselves as liberal/Democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 2:52 PM GMT
    new-interrogation-methods-obama-weak-on-
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 7:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    GQjock saidChanneling Church Lady from SNL

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc8S3_HSSk5WoDCFMe04n

    FBI gaining access to phone records
    I wonder who could it be who started that
    Could it be

    Kim Kardashian? .... No

    Phil Donohue? ..... No

    Could it be ..... BUSH ????

    icon_cool.gif


    For clarification, I don't know if this is the case that it was started under Bush but are you saying that Obama's defense of the policy because of Bush gives him a pass and also makes the policy legitimate?

    I really don't get the partisanship on issues - and that's why I personally don't affiliate myself with any political party. Parties say and do stupid things - it'd be refreshing if people started to think for themselves - and I do find this lemming like mentality tends to be far more prevalent amongst those who I know (which admittedly is overwhelmingly educated, white and liberal) who identify themselves as liberal/Democrat.




    riddler seems to "channeling" Southbeach.
    "I'm not a Republican. I'm an Independent. Really I am. I swear!"
    LOL!
    Totallly unbelievable BS.
    You're a partisan REPUBLICAN, riddler.
    Your posts have proved it time and time again.
    Why are you so ashamed of it that you lie about it and deny it?

    And riddler claiming that he doesn't "get the partisanship on issues" after he's posted many many threads that are - LIKE THIS ONE - blatantly anti-Obama or anti-the Democratic party - is just unbelievably hypocritical.
    AGAIN - TOTAL BS.
  • SoBeCamera

    Posts: 74

    Feb 12, 2011 7:35 PM GMT
    @ rickrick91: +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 7:49 PM GMT

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/03/att_verizon_we_/

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/11/2062565/justice-department-assertion-fbi.html

    If Your Prez tried to end it, do you think the House, now Republican, would OK this action? Or would they oppose it because it's an Obama 'lefty idea endangering the safety of the US' .

    My what cute lil lemmings! Awwwwww. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    I believe the distinction here is that this only applies to outgoing international phone calls, not domestic. If my memory serves (and I haven't Googled this), I think part of the justification is that the party at the other end of the call is presumed not to be a US citizen, who does not enjoy US Constitutional protections, so the telephone records are to obtain information on HIM, not necessarily the US citizen in this country. Though obviously you can't see the one without the other.

    If so, I find that a rather weak argument, but haven't Federal courts already made some favorable rulings supporting this policy, during the Bush years? And yes, it was Bush who made this widespread, although I believe it may have existed secretly even earlier in the past.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 9:23 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    If Your Prez tried to end it, do you think the House, now Republican, would OK this action? Or would they oppose it because it's an Obama 'lefty idea endangering the safety of the US' .


    As I remarked before (twice I think), it's very interesting how many, but not all, national security hawks have turned libertarian around 1/1/2009 12:00:01 am.icon_lol.gif

    Sometimes I think Obama should do EXACTLY what his critics say and see what happens...most likely they'll tell him to do what he originally intended to do anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said

    riddler seems to "channeling" Southbeach.
    "I'm not a Republican. I'm an Independent. Really I am. I swear!"
    LOL!
    Totallly unbelievable BS.
    You're a partisan REPUBLICAN, riddler.
    Your posts have proved it time and time again.
    Why are you so ashamed of it that you lie about it and deny it?



    Just because someone is against the policies of the Democrat party doesn't make them a Republican RickRick. I really don't see anyone on here cheerleading for the Republicans.

    If any of us "non-Democrats" were Republicans, don't you think we would be strongly advocating for the Republicans on here? It's not like we're afraid to state our opinions... we criticize the Democrats and their policies but that doesn't prove that we are Republicans.

    Please read the preceding paragraph over and over again until you understand its meaning. Thank you.




    LOL!
    Posting COUNTLESS threads and comments attacking the Democrats - as you and riddler have done - absolutely counts as "advocating for the Republicans".

    YOUR OWN POSTS PROVE THAT YOU ARE REPUBLICANS.
    Please read the preceding sentence over and over again until you realize that you WILL NEVER BS anyone on here that you're anything but a hardcore partisan REPUBLICAN.
    Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 9:40 PM GMT
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/09/tea_partyDespite my belief that such an alliance is both tenable and necessary -- and last night's Patriot Act vote underscores that fact -- I'm ultimately quite pessimistic about its ability to produce any meaningful benefits in the near future. That's because there are far too many impulses among ostensibly "limited government" conservatives which conflict with -- and ultimately negate -- any possibility for meaningful civil liberties defenses.

    In those rare cases when there has been real opposition on the Right, it has been grounded in a fear that they[the writer's emphasis] will be subjected to the abuses they oppose. Christian groups were petrified that Patriot Act powers would be used by federal officials to disrupt their religious liberty. Anger over TSA patdowns occurred on the Right only because good white Christian Americans (rather than dark American Muslims) were being inconvenienced. And the newfound right-wing concern for the Constitution stems from the belief that Obama (unlike Bush) will use the Executive Branch's ability to transgress Constitutional limits in a way that harms conservatives. It's very self-interested -- and unprincipled -- advocacy: they suddenly discover their distrust of government power and belief in liberty only when they perceive that their own interests are endangered. That's better than never discovering it -- indeed, the Democrats' failure to meaningfully oppose Bush's seizure of radical power, even if only on self-interested grounds, will redound to their eternal shame -- but such erratic interest in civil liberties makes for a very unreliable and ultimately counter-productive alliance.

    Worse, other impulses in that movement render support for civil liberties abuses inevitable as long as they're directed at other people. The nativism, the anti-Muslim bigotry, the blinding American exceptionalism, the fear-based eagerness to support anything in the name of Security, and the instinctive reverence for GOP political authority all ensure widespread support among the Right -- even those factions incessantly marching under the banner of "limited government" -- for the vast majority of authoritarian assaults on civil liberties. There has been some principled, strong opposition among some libertarian and "paleoconservative" factions on the Right, but those factions are far too small to make much of a difference. For the vast majority of American conservatives -- including the self-proclaimed limited government Tea Party movement -- the instincts that generate support for authoritarian policies easily overwhelm the instincts against it.

    Last night's unexpected Patriot Act vote illustrates the tantalizing promise of such an alliance. Things would be vastly improved on the civil liberties front if the American Right was even minimally faithful to the political principles they claim to support. But the nature of that movement means that last night's vote is far more of an isolated aberration than anything likely to change the bipartisan dynamic in a positive way. Indeed, the very weak status of civil liberties in the U.S. is compellingly illustrated by the fact that an alliance with this deeply unprincipled and authoritarian movement is one of the few viable means for stemming the tide of the erosion.