Slashdot Mirror
NSA Confirms It Has Been Searching US Citizens' Data Without a Warrant
Charliemopps writes: "According to Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 'There have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.' Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant, according to the NSA."
Speaking of bullshit, what the devil is the deal with the damned voice I assume people get on RSS feeds? I don't recall ever checking a setting "Please read this to me in a terribly digitized voice every time I look at an article"
"These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.' Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant, according to the NSA." No, I'm sorry. I don't really give two-fucking shits what kind of weasel-dicked lawyer-speak garbage these scum fucks have come up with, continually honing, and that boils down to "Because FUCK YOU, that's why". What I want to know is: "When the justice system is no longer interested in enforcing the clear spirit and intent of the US Constitution, what are we as citizens supposed to do?" We have no representation in congress, clearly the police are not interested in protecting us and ensuring the government is bound by its own laws. The answer is coming down to bloody and violent conflict, or a one-thousand year police state that makes the feudal structure of 10th century Europe look like club-med.
"Basically, if you communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist, you've lost constitutional protection against searches without a warrant"
Fair game. Really. And I speak here as the pacifist humanitarian that I am.
But how do you make distinction between a terrorist and a freedom figher whose people are trying to survive genonide under your friendly ("preferred") trading partners? Tibet (unique in every way; language, culture, ethnicity, script etc.)? Ukraine (unique and close to Europe)? Or perhaps just a member of some rural middle-eastern belief system from the 6th century?
What value system are you basing this "terrorist" label upon? Believing in freedom? Self-determination? Or something else? Saying unpleasant things about the militaristic occupying nation? (you'd disappear in China)
It's the 21st century so please make up your mind and finally make more than a pretend stand on this issue: who are the terrorists (who you may actually trade with) and who are the actual victims of terrorism (often state-sponsored)?
The whole democratic majority of the world (as long as it exists) has a last chance to decide what they consider acceptable, at a state level. Are your real opponents mere misguided goat herders or something state-sponsored and fundamentally game-changing?
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
Well maybe if we arrested them then beat them and water boarded them repeatedly, maybe that might get the point across?
Slasdot's biggest april's fools joke this year: No april's fools jokes! All of the news is unbelievable!