Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RevDisk on September 30, 2015, 03:17:25 PM
-
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/nsa-dea-fbi-snowden-doj-oig/
Long story short, NSA legally or illegally wiretapped US citizens. They then would give the data to the FBI, DEA and other federal agencies. Those agents would lie under oath, also known as committing perjury, about the source of information in court. This is known as parallel construction.
Example?
NSA intercepts Fistful's phone calls, text messages, internet traffic and other useful metadata. All very harmful stuff that laypersons don't understand is bloody important and generally not legally separate from the actual content, but people pretend it is. Fistful's cell for example leaves very detailed, but not extremely granular, locational data. NSA charts Fistful's position over a couple weeks, and then emails it to the DEA. The the DEA stakes out the highway Fistful is likely taking. He's pulled over for speeding, suspected DUI, whatever. An on-hand drug dog finds a bottle of aspirin (or weed or Brady Center propaganda) in his glove box, that he is arrested. Under oath, officers swear it was a random search and not illegally collected data from the NSA. This is to bypass giving information on our domestic surveillance capacity, as well as bypass "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal protections, by lying to prosecutors and judges.
Generally, evidence collected from illegal searches is excluded. Unless you commit perjury, of course. Having been caught, they've been taken to using third parties as proxies. For example, DEA wouldn't tell its agents or other departments were the data came from. DEA's Special Operations Division simply say "Randomly pull over a 1971 line green AMC Gremlin on Route 123."
So, in other words, violations of the Fourth Amendment and perjury committed in court rooms is bigger and more institutionalized than previously thought. Shocking, I know.
-
a) That stuff ain't mine, and I ain't never seen it before.
b) I didn't know it was there.
-
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gatto-surveillance-3rd-amendment-20150929-story.html
Interesting take on challenging the above problems.
-
a) That stuff ain't mine, and I ain't never seen it before.
b) I didn't know it was there.
You forgot
c) Sumdude put it there.
-
You forgot
c) Sumdude put it there.
Mandatory: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.se/2007/05/i-bow-before-ad.html
-
Wait a minute. This DoJ is "investigating" the massive amount of data collected (legally or illegally)?
"The yield of that NSA spying program was described by a judge as a 'staggering' amount of data when the agency's ability to collect it was struck down as illegal in court earlier this year. The program was resumed in June and will run until at least December."
So now this staggering amount of data is also in the hands of the DoJ as well as the individual investigating agencies?
Hmmmmmmmm...... [tinfoil]
Terry
-
You forgot
c) Sumdude put it there.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn4.miragestudio7.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2Fancient-aliens-guy.jpg&hash=2db04a75b00d7957fa6ef9333a0fe53961290a99)
-
Wait a minute. This DoJ is "investigating" the massive amount of data collected (legally or illegally)?
So now this staggering amount of data is also in the hands of the DoJ as well as the individual investigating agencies?
Hmmmmmmmm...... [tinfoil]
Terry
Along with my CCW information.
-
^
Double- Hmmmmmmmm...... [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
The DOJ is investigating. So...you saying nothing will happen, no one will go to jail, and nothing will change.
-
The DOJ is investigating. So...you saying nothing will happen, no one will go to jail, and nothing will change.
You only say that because they're investigating themselves.
-
And on a related tangent:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/30/secret-service-tried-to-discredit-gop-rep-chaffetz/?intcmp=hpbt2
-
The DOJ is investigating. So...you saying nothing will happen, no one will go to jail, and nothing will change.
I'm sure Issa and Gowdy will get to the bottom of this just like they have done with the Fast and Furious and Benghazi investigations. [barf]
-
You are all just jealous because i'm on more lists than you are. :P
stay safe.
-
You are all just jealous because i'm on more lists than you are. :P
I try not to think of how many lists I'm on.
Then again, last time I visited the Ft Meade to visit the Crypto Museum, the NSA barricaded the gates with half a dozen uparmored Suburbans. Made the rest of the date kinda awkward, btw.
-
The government is investigating itself for spying on citizens and lying under oath. I have so much faith in the outcome. ;/
-
The government is investigating itself for spying on citizens and lying under oath. I have so much faith in the outcome. ;/
The DOJ just wants access to the NSA's data to add to their own illegal files.
-
So what are the limits on the data transfer? If the NSA discovered a couple guys doing pretty nasty crimes against poeple, is there any way they can point the police at those people and let the police investigate and build their own case? Can a line be drawn somewhere or the whole thing not allowed? Also, I thought there was some court case within the last 6 months that allowed this in a limited way.
-
The government is investigating itself for spying on citizens and lying under oath. I have so much faith in the outcome. ;/
Remember how our fine, young President insured against fraudulent use of the TARP monies by appointing Joseph Biden as guardian? "Nobody's gonna mess with Joe."
Perhaps, if he is done there, he could oversee this investigation.
Nobody's gonna mess with Joe.
-
So what are the limits on the data transfer? If the NSA discovered a couple guys doing pretty nasty crimes against poeple, is there any way they can point the police at those people and let the police investigate and build their own case? Can a line be drawn somewhere or the whole thing not allowed? Also, I thought there was some court case within the last 6 months that allowed this in a limited way.
Something to remember, NSA is not a law enforcement agency. It is a military organization, under the DoD. It's important to remember that US citizenry are being directly monitored (even if you just buy the NSA argument that they're solely snagging metadata of US citizens) by the US military. Which is then selectively passed to law enforcement. And the US military was lying under oath to Congress about it (and admitted that too).
In reality, yes, 24 U.S. government agencies can access a lot of the NSA take using IC REACH. Those agencies tend to be the ones pointing local police at people. Sometimes they indeed launder their activities using the local police to investigate and build their cases, based originally on potentially tainted evidence, then backtracking their case with allegedly 'clean' cases, then lying under oath.
-
The DOJ just wants access to the NSA's data to add to their own illegal files.
Previously alluded to. Twice, I think. Must be pretty obvious.
Just how dumb do they think we are?
Terry
-
Just how dumb do they think we are?
It doesn't concern them how dumb we are. They are convinced of two things: That they can get away with anything, and that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
-
It doesn't concern them how dumb we are. They are convinced of two things: That they can get away with anything, and that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Sadly, that.
-
This like asking the fox to guard the hen house.
-
It doesn't concern them how dumb we are. They are convinced of two things: That they can get away with anything, and that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
There is no need to ascribe nefarious motives to the agents.
I'm sure they think that MAYBE they are stretching the law a little, but these are bad people who ought to be put in jail. As long as they are catching bad people (and the intercepts show they are), then the end justifies the means.
-
Something to remember, NSA is not a law enforcement agency. It is a military organization, under the DoD. It's important to remember that US citizenry are being directly monitored (even if you just buy the NSA argument that they're solely snagging metadata of US citizens) by the US military. Which is then selectively passed to law enforcement. And the US military was lying under oath to Congress about it (and admitted that too).
In reality, yes, 24 U.S. government agencies can access a lot of the NSA take using IC REACH. Those agencies tend to be the ones pointing local police at people. Sometimes they indeed launder their activities using the local police to investigate and build their cases, based originally on potentially tainted evidence, then backtracking their case with allegedly 'clean' cases, then lying under oath.
Agreed. They shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Just wondered if there was some "legal" path to using this data.
-
As far as the Govt investigating itself, what other choice is there? That is partly how checks and balances are supposed to work.
To see how it breaks down, you can look at some of the history of vigilantism in the US and why it started.
-
As far as the Govt investigating itself, what other choice is there? That is partly how checks and balances are supposed to work.
To see how it breaks down, you can look at some of the history of vigilantism in the US and why it started.
I think part of the problem is agencies investigating themselves. Some IG offices are good and full of bulldogs. Others are full of lapdogs.
-
Either way, it is up to the people we elect to make sure those checks and balances work. Unfortuneately, that hasn't happened in recent years.
-
As far as the Govt investigating itself, what other choice is there? That is partly how checks and balances are supposed to work.
To see how it breaks down, you can look at some of the history of vigilantism in the US and why it started.
Sure, but we all know how far we trust the DOJ.* I would at least like to see Congress look into it. Not that Congress has a great track record lately, but at least they are a different branch of government, rather than being the same department, under the same corrupt leadership.
*To be fair, they had the decency to admit there was no identifiable racism or wrong-doing in the Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin shootings.
-
Sure, but we all know how far we trust the DOJ.* I would at least like to see Congress look into it. Not that Congress has a great track record lately, but at least they are a different branch of government, rather than being the same department, under the same corrupt leadership.
*To be fair, they had the decency to admit there was no identifiable racism or wrong-doing in the Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin shootings.
Honestly I'd rather have DOJ look into it. As you pointed out they have investigated, seemingly fairly,a couple of high profile cases that the boss would LOVE to have found racism in. They have the ability to actually bring criminal charges.
The last couple things that Congress has "investigated" (Bengahzi, this issue last time, TARP funds usage, G-bay, the whole Bergdahl thing, Fast and Furious) has led me to strengthen my belief that a congressional investigation is where an issue goes to be swept under the rug.
Not saying that the DOJ is a paragon of trustworthyness, but theymight do something. Congress won't.