Profile image
By Voice of Reason
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Obama: “Ignore the Court. Resume Data Collection”

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 16:26
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

1000President Barack Obama talks to the media about the USA Freedom Act at the White House last month. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

By: Voice of Reason




Well, if there was any doubt about whether His Highness’s Ass thinks the Constitution and the laws of this country do not apply to him, let’s put those to rest right now. WITHIN FOUR HOURS of bold faced lying to the American people about how he would sign a new law BANNING the bulk data collection exercised by the NSA, Obama already had a team before the FISA court (AKA the top secret court) telling them to IGNORE the ruling of the Federal Court to cease bulk data collection. I wonder if anyone else remembers when the U.S. GOVERNMENT CREATED ISIS, and while it was still just an infant, when it could have been controlled, rather than watching them, Obama had hundreds of ‘FAKE’ CELL TOWERS INSTALLED ALL ACROSS AMERICA TO SPY ON AMERICANS.

A document eventually came to light that revealed how the MYSTERY CELL TOWERS WERE NOT ONLY RECORDING CELL PHONE CONVERSATIONS, but they also controlling several other surveillance technologies such as LICENSE PLATE READERS, which gather and store information on millions of drivers per month. The question everyone needs to be asking, is, “What does Obama need all this intel for?” EVEN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ONTO OBAMA’S MARTIAL LAW PLANS, so perhaps he needs assurances the 300+ HIGH RANKING MILITARY OFFICERS HE OUTED AREN’T PLANNING A COUNTER-OFFENSIVE. I don’t know. What I want to know is why the press doesn’t SWARM Obama the next time he shows his face. He was telling the FISA Court to ignore the ruling just FOUR HOURS after bold faced lying to the American People. 



Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to IGNORE A FEDERAL COURT that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months.

The legal request, FILED NEARLY FOUR HOURS AFTER Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.

US officials confirmed last week that they would ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court – better known as the Fisa court, a panel that meets in secret as a step in the surveillance process and thus far has only ever had the government argue before it – to turn the domestic bulk collection spigot back on.

Justice Department national security chief John A Carlin cited a six-month transition period provided in the USA Freedom Act – passed by the Senate last week to ban the bulk collection – as a reason to permit an “orderly transition” of the NSA’s domestic dragnet. Carlin did not address whether the transition clause of the Freedom Act still applies now that a congressional deadlock meant the program shut down on 31 May.

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

But Carlin asked the Fisa court to set aside a landmark declaration by the second circuit court of appeals. Decided on 7 May, the appeals court ruled that the government had erroneously interpreted the Patriot Act’s authorization of data collection as “relevant” to an ongoing investigation to permit bulk collection.

Carlin, in his filing, wrote that the Patriot Act provision remained “in effect” during the transition period.

“This court may certainly consider ACLU v Clapper as part of its evaluation of the government’s application, but second circuit rulings do not constitute controlling precedent for this court,” Carlin wrote in the 2 June application. Instead, the government asked the court to rely on its own body of once-secret precedent stretching back to 2006, which Carlin called “the better interpretation of the statute”.

The second circuit court of appeals is supposed to bind only the circuit’s lower courts. But the unique nature of the Fisa court – whose rulings practically never became public before whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations – has left ambiguous which public court precedents it is obliged to follow.

“While the Fisa court isn’t formally bound by the second circuit’s ruling, it will certainly have to grapple with the second circuit’s interpretation of the ‘relevance’ requirement. The [court] will also have to consider whether Congress effectively adopted the second circuit’s interpretation of the relevance requirement when it passed the USA Freedom Act,” said Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, which brought the lawsuit the second circuit decided.

The second circuit did not issue an injunction stopping the bulk collection. It deferred to the then-ongoing congressional debate over the USA Freedom Act, citing legislation as the more appropriate mode of relief. The ACLU, now confronting a potential return of bulk surveillance via the Fisa court, is considering seeking an injunction in the appropriate federal district court should the Fisa Court grant the government surveillance request.

Yet Carlin’s request to the Fisa court suggested the Obama administration would not consider the second circuit the last word – and might seek to challenge the injunction.

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

Carlin told the Fisa court that the government was “considering its litigation options in regard to the second circuit’s opinion”, which would have to mean a challenge before the US supreme court.

Carlin added in a footnote: “In the event an injunction of some sort were to issue by the district court, the government would need to assess, in light of the nature and scope of whatever injunction the district court issued, its ability to carry out authority granted under an order issued by this court.”

But the Fisa court must first decide whether the new bulk-surveillance request is lawful.

On Friday, the conservative group FreedomWorks filed a rare motion before the Fisa court, asking it to reject the government’s surveillance request as a violation of the fourth amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Fisa court judge Michael Moseman gave the justice department until this coming Friday to respond – and explicitly barred the government from arguing that FreedomWorks lacks the standing to petition the secret court.

“The only federal appeals court to have considered this surveillance concluded, after very careful analysis, that it’s unlawful. It’s disturbing and disappointing that the government is proposing to continue it,” said Jaffer, of the ACLU.

Read the article here at The Guardian:


By: Voice of Reason












Mouse Pad


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.