Snowdon is a dummy

Furthermore, it was misleading statements by the administration, not NSA.

Which is why I said to my knowledge, are there any more?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/declassified-fisa-court-opinion-shows-nsa-lied-repeatedly-to-court-as-well.shtml

Other pages detail more concerns, including misrepresentation of the methods used in 702 collections, which the opinion claims "fundamentally alters the Court's understanding of the scope of the collection."

As the Washington Post points out, this opinion, which details many instances in which the NSA flat out lied to the court, lends some credence to statements made by presiding judge Reggie Walton, who claimed the court was limited to making decisions based on information the NSA provided. This opinion appears to detail the NSA setting up its own complicit court system, intentionally misleading it in order to continue its surveillance programs unabated.

This opinion appears to detail the NSA setting up its own complicit court system, intentionally misleading it in order to continue its surveillance programs unabated.

As a matter of fact I don't think NSA is particularly trustworthy, nor do I think politicians or presidents are very trustworthy.

However, despite that, I still believe the NSA is important and should be maintained as a important part of our security.

If the mass data collecting really is not efficient, then it should be discontinued.

However, if it is any help at all, however indirectly or minimal, then it should be continued. I really wouldn't know one way or another as to its efficiency or lack thereof.

it still stands that only Clapper directly lied to congress

Quote:

As a matter of fact I don't think NSA is particularly trustworthy, nor do I think politicians or presidents are very trustworthy.

How true, Revelette. As a matter of fact, the majority of presidents are as a general rule, political....and yet there are degrees. I think, Obama, naively has tried to remain true to his personal values, but finds it almost an impossibility. Even though Obama has tried to uphold his campaign promises, the heightened degree of opposition against this president and his programs has been exceptionally drastic.

Quote:

However, despite that, I still believe the NSA is important and should be maintained as a important part of our security.

The NSA program is still in its infancy, established in 1952, is responsible for global monitoring, collection, decoding, translation and analysis of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. I, like you, believe the NSA program performs a critical role in keeping American' alert to possible terrorist acts....I wish they had paid more attention before GWB invaded Iraq. The NSA program is not perfect by any means but it's working towards such......"we grow in our grind. We mature thru our mistakes".... I do not believe for one moment the US government is deliberately keeping track of every American because they are acutely interested in the personal conservations between individuals. This is NSA's rudimentary stage of evolution, and it will get better in the future, eliminating the need to "spy" on Americans. To date, we don't know how successful the NSA program has been because such info is not disseminated to the public for fear of letting the terrorist know. But the fact they're able to many times tract certain would-be/wannabe terrorists remains an absolute plus in my personal opinion. Those shouting the loudest regarding "their privacy" simply do not comprehend just how much of their privacy has already been compromised just by having a credit card and the banks being hacked, and cameras everywhere, and whenever one buys anything on the World Wide Web.

Quote:

If the mass data collecting really is not efficient, then it should be discontinued.

This is surely a part of the program's future growth as there would be no need to continue holding such unimportant data on Americans.

Quote:

However, if it is any help at all, however indirectly or minimal, then it should be continued. I really wouldn't know one way or another as to its efficiency or lack thereof.

I could not agree more. Sometimes, it seem the National Security Agency is growing in one dimension, and not in another; unevenly.... ideals can only be done through life experiences and learning by trial and error. Change is inevitable and NSA through trials and error will get better.

I agree wholeheartedly with damn near everything you said here, MiT.
Excellent post.

Thank you, Frank Apisa. Coming from someone of your shrewdness and discernment I consider your words to be a great compliment.

The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

But it is black and white where it concerns the US Constitution.

From Cornell University Law School.

Quote:

The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the presidential election in Florida[12] and on that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount.[13] On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay the Florida recount, because according to Justice Scalia:

Florida Supreme Court
It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.[14]
The dissenters opined:
Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm... Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election.[14]
The four dissenting justices argued that stopping the recount was an "unwise" violation of "three venerable rules of judicial restraint", namely respecting the opinions of state supreme courts, cautiously exercising jurisdiction when "another branch of the Federal Government" has a large measure of responsibility to resolve the issue, and avoiding making peremptory conclusions on federal constitutional law prior to a full presentation on the issue.

That you consider SCOTUS to be error free based on our Constitution is somewhat troubling.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-error-supreme-court-dissent-epa

True, but I don't hold them to be right on every case which is the issue.

Just because they have the authority doesn't make them right.