Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,076
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 115:
Line 115: + + + + + + + + + + + +
History of the Democrat party under Barack Obama (view source)
Revision as of 20:26, December 23, 2018
, 20:26, December 23, 2018→4th Amendment abuses
The Obama Justice Department then argued that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. Birch Bricker writing in the ''Auburn Journal'' then points out, "This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the [[White House]], not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the [[Bush Administration]] — has ever interpreted the law this way....The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the [[US PATRIOT Act]] also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Administration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes." <ref>[http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/111477.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=Patriot+Act&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=2&sub_type=&town_id= It's Actually Possible... The Patriot Act Gets Worse], ''Auburn Journal'', 4/12/09.</ref>
The Obama Justice Department then argued that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. Birch Bricker writing in the ''Auburn Journal'' then points out, "This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the [[White House]], not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the [[Bush Administration]] — has ever interpreted the law this way....The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the [[US PATRIOT Act]] also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Administration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes." <ref>[http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/111477.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=Patriot+Act&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=2&sub_type=&town_id= It's Actually Possible... The Patriot Act Gets Worse], ''Auburn Journal'', 4/12/09.</ref>
===Warrantless wiretapps===
:''See: [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]''
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would give the administration authority to conduct warrant-less spying and dictatorial power over Internet.<ref>[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet Should Obama Control the Internet?], ''Mother Jones'', April 2, 2009.</ref>
*Section 215 -- drastically broadens the kinds of information the government can demand under Foreign Intelligence Security Act to "any tangible thing" while lowering the burden of proof to obtain such an order. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'' this measure "allows investigators probing terrorism to seek a suspect's records from third parties such as financial services and travel and telephone companies without notifying the suspect. The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the provision, saying it violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens."
*Section 206—grants the authority to use secret "roving wiretaps." "In the past, authorities had to seek court approval for each electronic device carried by a suspect, from a cellphone and a BlackBerry to a home computer," writes the ''Post'', "But under the provision, one warrant can cover all of those machines." "Unlike roving wiretaps authorized for criminal investigations," the ACLU explains, "section 206 does not require the order to identify either the communications device to be tapped nor the individual against whom the surveillance is directed, which is what gives section 206 the Kafkaesque moniker, the "John Doe roving wiretap provision."
*Section 6001—or the "lone wolf" provision, which allows for secret FISA surveillance orders against people who have no connections to a terror group or foreign nation. "The government justified this provision by imagining a hypothetical "lone wolf," an international terrorist operating independently of any terrorist organization," explains the ACLU, "but there is little evidence to suggest this imaginary construct had any basis in reality."
Rod Beckstrom, formerly in charge of coordinating the US government’s cyber-security operations, in a resignation letter to Secretary of Homeland Security [[Janet Napolitano]],<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BeckstromResignation.pdf Letter from Rod Beckstrom to Janet Napolitano], [[Wall Street Journal]], March 9, 2009.</ref> cited the expanded control over the nation’s computer security efforts poses “threats to our democratic processes.” <ref>''[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/03/11/US-cybersecurity-head-quits-citing-growing-role-of-spy-agencies/UPI-64411236692969/ U.S. cybersecurity head quits, citing growing role of spy agencies]'', Shaun Waterman, [[UPI]], March 11, 2009.</ref>
===Misuse of intelligence agencies===
===Misuse of intelligence agencies===