NSA Sharing Collected Data With DEA For Convictions

You literally have no clue what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Criminals and terrorists would absolutely love it if you guys were in charge!!

 

I bet these liberals would be calling for Bush's impeachment if they knew it happened under him.

- - - Updated - - -

We all can't be brown shirts.

 

Or some of us have to be grown ups

 

Except that's just one aspect of Smith v Maryland, as I pointed out. The more significant aspect is that police had a clear defined reason for using a pen register on Smith.
Fishing expeditions with people's private affairs are illegal.

 

In lieu of your obvious obfuscation, attempt to actually explain where, in specificity, the Constitution grants this fascist power to the government.

If you cannot, the Constitution is quite clear: the power is not granted if the power is not defined, as per the Federalist Papers' James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

 

It's quite simple, Smith v Maryland, the court ruled that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to who you call or who calls you as it's passed through a 3rd party.

Until the court rules that bulk collection of this metadata is unconstitutional what they are doing is not breaking any laws and it is not violating the Constitution in any way. The 4th amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the courts your phone records do not fall under the classification of being "unreasonable" for the government to obtain.

 

That's not how case law works. The precedent was made that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of whether you actually are a criminal or not. Therefore according to the law, the NSA has not violated anyone's privacy since phone records have been determined not be private. Which is why they continue these programs as we speak despite all the cries for it being "unconstitutional".

 

vs. your previous protest of

So are you playing for the Yank Socks, or the Redees? Just depends on who'll win the game at the time, right?

Anyway... as clearly stated by three Amendments to the Constitution, and as clearly defined by the Federalist Papers, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

If the power is NOT defined, the power does not exist.

THAT is simple.

 

Lol, the Constitution itself is not simple... once they rule on it and say this is the law it becomes pretty simple to understand.

And the courts have ruled that this information is considered to be "business records", which the government is granted the power to collect. They even more recently ruled that your location data isn't even protected by the 4th amendment and this is classified as "business records" also.

The courts simply do not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, lol.

 

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Anything that can be used against terrorists and criminals today can be used against enemies of the administration tomorrow.

 

Ahhh yes, forget about the military or police forces, it's foreign telecommunications that are going to bring this country down, lol.

 

Exactly. For the NSA to transfer information like that without a warrant is basically throwing away the 4th amendment. Today the DEA uses it. Tomorrow, the FBI or IRS will be using NSA information. Then, the DNC (or RNC) will be using that information.......

 

Please point to the case where they do so.

 

I was referring to the statement that the Constitution is written in "plain language" for anyone to understand.

 

The Director of National intelligence also said that the NSA doesn't collect any type of data at all of American citizens. The administration doesn't have much credibility on this issue.

 

Then they lied to the courts about the source of information for prosecuting the drug cases. Is that somehow less bad than lying to the public?

 

Unlike the NSA, the DEA is still required to follow the Constitution, sort of now and again...

 

Shouldn't that be 'Fishing expeditions with peoples private used to be illegal'? After all, today the government pretty much does whatever it desires.

 

The collection of one single number from one single specific person believed to be making dangerous threatening calls to a woman he had earlier robbed is not remotely like collecting billions of calls without the slightest regard to probable cause.
One has it. One does not.

You are going to discover that meta data differs from Smith v Maryland because the government cannot work to discover who you associate with
without probable cause.

 

You know they don't they spend it and lots more that they borrow and print. And this is where you jump in and say... So you admit they are spending the money and that its going to people and businesses which "help" the economy.... that is your main point right? The one you seem to want me to walk into and "trap" myself?

Well I have a few things for you to think on...
1. Opportunity cost, if that money was left in the hands of the people that earned it, it is far more likely that it would be used productively to grow the economy than when government spends it. Not all spending is equal, anyone with any fundamental understanding of economics, finance or even business knows this.

2. When something like 70% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck forcing 30% from them in order to "help" them, seems like a slap in the face. Especially when some of that money is then used to spy on them.

3. Using force to take the fruit of ones labor is essentially slavery or indentured servitude. Now I agree government has a valid function in society as people left to their own devices will abuse their greedy nature, but giving those in government carte blanche also allows them to abuse their greedy nature, it gets so bad that at some point they start using the power of government such as whats going on with the NSA to defend their cartel against the very people they are supposed to protect. You can live with your head in the sand, but history is ripe with examples of governments abusing their people to protect the decadent lifestyle of politicians... The way you defend that it makes me think you are one of those politicians.

 

1) Why is it "far more likely" to be used productively? Are you saying investing in education, infrastructure, military, etc is not productive? Or you one of the ones that just make blanket statements like the government just wastes every dollar it spends to push some crazy anti-government ideology?

2) The paycheck to paycheck stat is so misleading. I technically live paycheck to paycheck based on their criteria. I make quite a bit of money and I do not have 6 months worth of income in a savings account. The # would be much different if they asked do you have 6 months of liquid assets worth of income.

3) Blah blah blah, taxes will never go away. If you don't want to pay taxes go move to Somalia or something. It's not even realistic to argue with people who talk about this "it's theft", "they use force", "they steal the fruits of our labor". Pure ignorance.


You have talking points, that's all you have. Opportunity costs is such a joke of an argument. Of course there are opportunity costs in every single transaction there is. It doesn't matter whether the money is coming from the government or from an employer. Income is income... consumption is consumption. This whole notion that government spending is different then private sector spending is pure bull chit. And what's the opportunity costs when we have 7% unemployment, and are at 70% capacity utilization. You'd have a point if we were at full employment and full capacity. Otherwise, the opportunity cost argument, the theft argument, the paycheck to paycheck argument, those are all very silly economic arguments and no one in the real world of decision making would take you seriously.

 

Do you not understand what precedence is? It doesn't matter if it's just one case, that's how the Supreme Court works. They made the ruling that you do not have reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to who you call or who calls you. They are considered business transactions and the government has every right to them regardless of bulk transfers or not. This isn't my opinion, this is just how case law works. So as of now, collecting this metadata is not illegal. It would have to be brought to the supreme court where they made some ruling that bulk transfers of metadata was unconstitutional. My personal opinion, is they would uphold the current law because of it's effectiveness and legitimacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Not if the person was guilty of a crime

 

No, I'd say if you don't want to pay the taxes that the government wants you to pay, then get your elected representatives to support the Fair Tax bill. This way taxes paid are voluntary and this will force the government to balance their budget. Rather than having guaranteed money all the time, allowing the government to waste it on god knows what, this will help prevent that, and further giving freedoms back to individuals who don't want to support the system, if they don't want to.

A side note, I saw your post of folks defending criminals. You've been given information on how other government agencies is utilizing the information provided by the NSA against American citizens. You, and many others, didn't care when it was going against terrorists, but now that it's on home turf, you switch your tone about folks defending criminals?

Just like when the Boston Bomber was being interrogated for some time without having his rights read to him. I supported his rights to have his rights read to him, even though he committed a heinous crime. Why? Because if he doesn't get his rights, the drug dealers don't get theirs, then where does that leave the rest of us? Do we, as a nation, simply throw out the rule of law & just allow the government to determine what everyone has done, over a given time, and not state when they were garnering the information so the defense can't adequately defend themselves?

No, the NSA database needs to go, simple as that. One way or the other, it needs to go. I don't care what they've done with it, the one over reach, by going after drug dealers, is proof enough for me. Once you over step once, you'll continue to do it, and there will be no end to it. If you agree with it, then support the Fair Tax bill, so folks who don't believe in the NSA's unconstitutional data collecting don't have to fund them. Chose your path.

 

At the risk of being predictable, of course I do.

Thanks for the heads up anyway. But what if the circumstances of a new case with new facts and new issues come before the court?

Now you are making crap up and the court has never ruled on the legality of meta data collection. That issue is coming up and I can't wait to see what happens then.
But I should add, once more, that the collection of one phone number in a specifically targeted case is one thing...and taking billions of numbers
in a massive attempt to see without cause who I associate with is quite another.

Yes. This issue should be fast tracked before the Supreme Court.
Unwarranted surveillance was already illegal, I thought. But I guess we should settle this for once and for all.
And we see what your personal opinion is worth because as I recall you were assuring everyone that the NSA was not snooping into your business
but now we discover the DEA has gained access somehow to the information the NSA has uncovered.

 

Your ad auctoritatem fallacy knows no bounds! But the power of the Patriot ought not be underestimated.

There is a reason that the Declaration of Independence says, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

And, as Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, "The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress..."

So until you can support your silly position with anything other than a RECOGNIZED LOGICAL FALLACY, you will have no ground upon which to scoff at those who value freedom.

"My Big Brother said so" is not an argument.