It still floors me that some are trying to tie the logical pretzel of justifying this stuff.

Unlike some, I remember the Bush Era perfectly. They wanted these tools to use domestically against their opposition every bit as much as they wanted to use it on "terra." Imagine how great it would be if the police could roll up the next Occupy before it gets started by printing out the right sets of call-logs.

And the band aid of making dragnet surveillance "legal" with some FISA framework isn't going to stop it from being abused the next time a Bushie gets back in power.

Bad juju.

From above
She cited a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that made clear police can obtain phone records without a search warrant.

In 1979, in the case of Smith v. Maryland, the US Supreme Court stated that "pen register data", the numbers that were calling / called, named for the device that used to capture them; were like the addresses on the front of a mail envelope, and therefore did not require a warrant.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735

However, Congress responded to that decision and passed a law to protect "pen register data" and require a warrant to access:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3121

Congress passed Title 18 Section 3121 back in 1989. So this judge is about 3 decades out of date.

PamW

I find it recomforting that the secretive FISA court that oversees government surveillance defends its decisions by giving the National Security Agency broad powers to collect phone records of all Americans. I assume such records will be used to identify threats to national security, which would have been vital in identifying Al Qaeda operatives and learning about their intentions, on that fateful 9/11.

Edward Snowden knew that the NSA has the capability to identify threats to national security, for the purpose of neutralizing them, but has preferred to keep silent while he makes public other vital details of America´s defensive tools. And even accepted the invitation of none other than Vladimir Putin to be his guest

So, why do so many Americans defend Snowden´s treasonous acts? Because people are more concerned about their intimacy than about defending their own country.

God Bless America!

The secretive federal court that oversees government surveillance released a recent opinion Tuesday that explains and defends its decisions giving the National Security Agency broad power to collect the phone records of all Americans.

At issue were decisions going back to 2006 that permitted the agency to order phone companies to turn over the dialing records of calls made in this country. This "metadata" did not include the names of the callers, nor did it include the content of the calls.

The purpose of these measures was to allow the NSA to monitor calls and collect phone records of all Americans. These operations were a reaction to the 9/11 attacks which forced the United States to launch a review of signals intelligence operations worldwide.

The civilized world has been very lucky, as no further attacks have ocurred. But terrorist organizations have their own agendas, and further attacks are expected to occur.

Protecting the U.S. and its allies should require full time signals intelligence whose key objective should be to identify threats, especially 9/11-type threats.

Since Edward Snowden stole a significant portion of the sophisticated signals intelligence information, a review and replacement operation is in order.

ehcrsoss,

As the old maxim goes, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Although defending the USA from future terrorist attacks is a good intention; there is a legal way and an ILLEGAL way of accomplishing that aim.

The first thing to note is that the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland that underpins the FISA decision above was made moot by an Act of Congress. Although the US Supreme Court said that the Constitution doesn't require that warrants by obtained for this information; Congress wrote a LAW, namely Title 18 US Code Section 3121 that DOES mandate warrants, irrespective of what the US Supreme Court says was mandated by the Constitution. Congress mandated those warrants as a matter of law:

Title 18 US Code Section 3121

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3121

With such a law in place, there was a proper / legal way of defending against terrorists and an improper / illegal way of defending against terrorists. Unfortunately, the latter was chosen.

We can always catch more criminals, and have higher effective conviction rates if we throw away the Constitutional rights that were meant to protect individuals from the powers of the Government. However, I don't think we want to turn the USA into a "police state".

The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with a government that had virtually unlimited search powers. The colonial British government gave its officers "writs of assistance"; essentially "fill in the blanks" search warrants so they could search anywhere, whether they had valid reason or not, with no review from a disinterested judiciary. The Framers didn't like living under such a regime; and that's why they wrote the 4th Amendment the way they did. The 4th Amendment requires warrants for searches, and requires that officials be investigating an actual crime ( to the "probable cause" standard ), and not just conducting a "fishing expedition".

Now we are faced with the task of catching terrorists ahead of the act. Some of our Constitutional protections make this task more difficult. However, it is up to the people and their representatives to modify any "give and take" between Constitutional protections and policing terrorists. Some protections the police just have to live with; some may be relaxed somewhat. However, striking that balance is NOT the prerogative of the President or Administration; but the Congress and the Courts. Unfortunately, that function was usurped, illegally.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/214357414/fisa-court-nsa-surveillance-program-was-unconstitutional

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/secret-fisa-court-constitutional-rights

As far as the actions of Snowden; under normal circumstances, it is wrong for Snowden to "go public". There is a proper "whistleblower" process prescribed by law in which individuals trusted with secrets can report wrong-doing and illegality. In fact, they are encouraged to report "waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality", and are told they can do so without repercussions.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration hasn't been "playing fair" and following the laws meant to protect whistleblowers. We have the case of high level NSA manager Thomas Drake who attempted to "play by the rules". Unfortunately, he was pressured with legal action. He was facing "cooked up" offenses that could have landed him in prison for 35 years; and facing that was encouraged to "plea bargain" to 10-15 years in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

Fortunately, Mr. Drake stood his ground, and the Obama Administration folded their case at the beginning of trial since they had no case. The trial judge sharply rebuked the Obama Administration for these illegal tactics.

What does one do when the Administration is not playing fair?. What does one do when the Administration is not following the law?

I still have reservations with going "outside the law" as Snowden did; yet I understand it, when the Administration was the first to go "outside the law".

The Obama Administration was FOOLISH / STUPID / ARROGANT in not following the laws protecting whistleblowers. They were too STUPID to realize that the reason you should follow the procedures that protect whistleblowers is that if the Administration doesn't with one ( like Drake ), then the next one ( Snowden ) won't play by the rules either.

In effect, the Obama Adminstration, due to its FOOLISHNESS, begat the Snowden incident.

I don't completely absolve Snowden; but the major portion of the blame falls on Obama.

PamW

I am no lawyer but I think that under attack both legal and ilegal ways to defend citizens should be available. After all. preserving lives is the clear objective, even if that implies the possibility of lives being lost in the attempt.