Obama Administration Says It Can Spy On Americans Doug Fiedor [email protected] This is really nothing new to many of us. Over the last few years the executive department has written many executive orders allowing them to do almost anything they wish. The law is whatever they say it is and can change on any day according to circumstances that they determine. That's just the way it is and, short of revolt, there is simply nothing whatsoever we can do about it anymore. Hey . . . we voted for them! Or, at last our inaction allowed them to win. When's the last time *you* hit the streets working in a campaign to get someone good elected?? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110213/22503013075/obama-administration-says-it-can-spy-americans-cant-tell-you-what-law-allows-it.shtml Obama Administration Says It Can Spy On Americans, But Can't Tell You What Law Allows It from the secret-laws! dept Remember how President Obama, while campaigning, promised to reject the questionable spying practices of the federal government of President Bush? Yeah, forget all that. Over the past two years, we've seen time and time again that he's actually extended those abuses even further. The latest to come out is that the Justice Department is now claiming that the FBI has the right to get phone records on any call made from inside the US to an international number without any oversight. You may recall a few years back that there was a similar controversy, when it came out that the FBI would regularly just call up phone companies and ask for records -- despite the fact that this violates certain laws designed to protect consumer privacy. Sometimes, they would just use post-it notes. Apparently, a year ago, McClatchy newspapers put in a FOIA request, asking for the details of a particular Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that was mentioned in the (previously released, but highly redacted) report that showed how frequently the FBI abused the law in this manner. The OLC took its sweet time responding, but finally responded, and in the cover letter admitted that the Obama administration believes it is perfectly legal for the FBI to route around the in-place oversight for getting access to such records and claimed that the law said so. Which law says so? Oh, see, that they can't say. Yes, the part of the letter that explains which law lets the FBI get these records without oversight was redacted. It's a secret law! And here I thought, in the US, if the government was going to base actions on a particular law, at the very least, they were supposed to tell you what law. Apparently, the Justice Department under the Obama administration does not believe that to be the case. Basically, what this means is that the federal government believes that it's free to request information without first getting court approval -- and without telling the public what law says they're allowed to get this information. That's not what the laws on the books seem to say at all. But, of course, big telcos such as AT&T, who are so closely tied to the government, are going to roll over and give the government such info (or, perhaps, give them direct access to the info), even if it violates other laws. Why do you think President Obama voted to support giving telcos retroactive immunity on this issue, while he was running for President despite having earlier said he was against it? Now that he's in power, he apparently is perfectly happy to let the FBI twist the clear intentions of the law to spy on Americans without oversight, and then to refuse to reveal what law he's relying on to make such spying on Americans without oversight legal. McClatchy quotes Michael German, a former FBI agent, who now works for the FBI pointing out the obvious: "It's wrong that they're withholding a legal rationale that has to do with the authorities of the FBI to collect information that affects the rights of American citizens here and abroad.... The law should never be secret. We should all understand what rules we're operating under and particularly when it comes to an agency that has a long history of abuse in its collection activities." And so far, it doesn't seem like most people care. About the only politician who really seems concerned about this is Senator Wyden, who says this level of secrecy "is a serious problem" and he's "continuing to press the executive branch to disclose more information to the public about what their government thinks the law means." Once again, kudos to Senator Wyden for being one of a very small number of politicians who seems to consistently be concerned about the rights of individuals. But it's sad that the rest of our elected officials aren't up in arms about this. The government shouldn't be spying on Americans, and if it is, it should at least have to tell Americans what law it's basing that decision on. Check out Doug's website http://fiedorreport.blogspot.com/ Note: All hate speech has been removed from the above text. Is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land or not? I GUESS THE SCOTUS HAS ANWERED THAT QUESTION Is violence the last resort, or does surrender precede it? Who is George Soros http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700 How does Obama expect to get re-elected? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965 If a link above does not work, cut-and-paste to your browser. Please be aware that Barack Hussein Obama’s grandfather was a highly respected witch doctor with the Luo tribe. His white grandmother was VP at the Bank of Hawaii and she worked with and for Peter Geithner on other projects, Peter is the father of Timothy Geithner, Obama's choice of Treasurer of the US. We the People http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE This email is archived at http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en I'M MAD, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bprelutsky/2009/07/05/im-mad-as-hell/ . -- To join RichsRants, send email to: [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
