Obama Said to Plan Moves to Shield 5 Million Immigrants

[Yonivore]

The NSA dragnet was the mass interception of communications in the US post 2001 (which I believe it's what's call the metadata program today). The program was implemented in secrecy by the Executive under an EO. Years later, when the program was leaked out to the public (by the NYTimes IIRC), and phone companies were about to get sued for complying with it, Congress enacted new law legalizing the program and granting phone companies retroactive immunity. Obviously, it had to be retroactive, because there was no such law by Congress when the EO was created.

BTW, Barry voted in favor of that program and the retroactive immunity. IIRC, that vote was in 2008. At that point I knew he was more of the same.

IIRC, the NSA "dragnet" was directed at communication that originated outside the United States and was conducted at bases, also outside the United States. While it is illegal to conduct a warrantless wiretap on an domestic phone, it is not illegal for a national intelligence agency to tap a foreign source of communication -- even if one of the parties to that communication is in the United States. Also, IIRC, Congress was fully informed and agreed to the program.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

when somebody's campaign was so geared towards that one issue to the point where his nickname became "Mark Uterus" i think its a valid point

And what point do you think that is? That guy lost in a mismanaged campaign. That tells me that independents and the democratic base do a better job discerning when someone is patronizing them.

Compare and contrast to the response you get from GOP types regarding the oversimplified clarion call regarding Benghazi and Gruber. People died and he said you were stupid! #GruberGATE!!!!!!

[spurraider21]

Spin it however you want, it's still people trying too hard to pound one issue as "the hot button issue" when they should be concerned with the totality of what is going on.

[ElNono]

IIRC, the NSA "dragnet" was directed at communication that originated outside the United States and was conducted at bases, also outside the United States. While it is illegal to conduct a warrantless wiretap on an domestic phone, it is not illegal for a national intelligence agency to tap a foreign source of communication -- even if one of the parties to that communication is in the United States. Also, IIRC, Congress was fully informed and agreed to the program.

Nope. See Hepting v. AT&T, eventually dismissed due to the retroactive immunity granted in 2008. Also Jewel v. NSA, which is still ongoing.

[dbestpro]

What affect if any does anyone think this will have on unions, and the amount of expenditures for low income people per person?

[Yonivore]

Nope. See Hepting v. AT&T, eventually dismissed due to the retroactive immunity granted in 2008. Also Jewel v. NSA, which is still ongoing.

Dismissed and pending. I see.

[ElNono]

Dismissed and pending. I see.

Dismissed because of the retroactive immunity. Case was filed in January 2006, retroactive immunity was granted in July 2008 through FISAAA. Here's the District Court order:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/a...ting6309_0.pdf

FISAAA (after being amended in 2008) read:

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was ——
(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and...

[Yonivore]

Dismissed because of the retroactive immunity. Case was filed in January 2006, retroactive immunity was granted in July 2008 through FISAAA. Here's the District Court order:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/a...ting6309_0.pdf

FISAAA (after being amended in 2008) read:

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was ——
(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and...

So, the phone companies ostensibly violated the law? Not the President? Got it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Spin it however you want, it's still people trying too hard to pound one issue as "the hot button issue" when they should be concerned with the totality of what is going on.

I'm trying to talk about it. That guy did lose. It is what it is.

The 1% comment is modern semantics for the same class distinctions and complaints that have existed since the times of aristocracy. Women's and rights are an extension of liberalism that dates from back then too.

What do Benghazi and this Gruber hearken too? You really think that the GOP establishment seeks disestablishment? Government bad! DERP #TWITTERTAG!

[ElNono]

So, the phone companies ostensibly violated the law? Not the President? Got it.

Apparently, phone companies did not have a choice, thus the immunity grant. There's plenty of examples under National Security Letters. Thus the second lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, the phone companies ostensibly violated the law? Not the President? Got it.

That is determined in a court of law and the GOP is all bark and no bite regarding that to this point.

Abbot might force the issue and we will see but all you are doing is advocating for the complainant and not making any factual legal statement. I am sure you spoke in much the same way regarding the legal argument regarding the mandate.

[ElNono]

But the fact that Bush himself wasn't sued actually goes to the point I was making: It's unlikely that Barry doesn't have the power to issue the EOs, even if there's no backing law. There's an unfortunate precedent.

It doesn't excuse the fact that they do such bull , IMO, but there's that.

[Yonivore]

But the fact that Bush himself wasn't sued actually goes to the point I was making: It's unlikely that Barry doesn't have the power to issue the EOs, even if there's no backing law. There's an unfortunate precedent.

It doesn't excuse the fact that they do such bull , IMO, but there's that.

I think the differences in what the Obama administration is proposing on immigration versus what the Bush administration did with respect to terrorist intelligence are many. Most of which we hashed and rehashed at the time. And, none of which I have the least desire to revisit at this late date.

But, one of the principal differences is that Congress was informed and approved of the NSA program.

[ElNono]

I think the differences in what the Obama administration is proposing on immigration versus what the Bush administration did with respect to terrorist intelligence are many. Most of which we hashed and rehashed at the time. And, none of which I have the least desire to revisit at this late date.

But, one of the principal differences is that Congress was informed and approved of the NSA program.

I don't think informing Congress is an issue here. And unfortunately, the President did not seek approval until much, much later, so in that sense, not much difference at all.

I opposed those shenanigans back then, I don't like what the current President is doing either.

[spurraider21]

I'm trying to talk about it. That guy did lose. It is what it is.

The 1% comment is modern semantics for the same class distinctions and complaints that have existed since the times of aristocracy. Women's and rights are an extension of liberalism that dates from back then too.

What do Benghazi and this Gruber hearken too? You really think that the GOP establishment seeks disestablishment? Government bad! DERP #TWITTERTAG!

you dont think there are lame twittertags on the other side? please

[Yonivore]

I don't think informing Congress is an issue here. And unfortunately, the President did not seek approval until much, much later, so in that sense, not much difference at all.

I opposed those shenanigans back then, I don't like what the current President is doing either.

The difference being, I don't believe what the administration did back then was either illegal or uncons utional.

What this administration is doing is clearly extralegal -- , he's as much as admitted it himself.

[ElNono]

Politically, this move reeks of planting seeds for the next campaign. This is a prez that deported the most illegals ever (good), and Dems probably don't want the GOP to use that.

[ElNono]

The difference being, I don't believe what the administration did back then was either illegal or uncons utional.

What this administration is doing is clearly extralegal -- , he's as much as admitted it himself.

What you believe is immaterial. Courts establish that.

EDIT: Your opinion is noted though.

[SnakeBoy]

Politically, this move reeks of planting seeds for the next campaign. This is a prez that deported the most illegals ever (good), and Dems probably don't want the GOP to use that.

I think it is clearly a political move for 2016 but I don't think it has much to do with the Hispanic vote. I think Obama is just trying to bait the GOP into overreacting by shutting down the govt, impeachment talk, etc. Dumbasses will probably take the bait tbh.

[ElNono]

I think it is clearly a political move for 2016 but I don't think it has much to do with the Hispanic vote. I think Obama is just trying to bait the GOP into overreacting by shutting down the govt, impeachment talk, etc. Dumbasses will probably take the bait tbh.

I see what you're saying. Here's where McConnell gotta shine.

[boutons_deux]

and the Repugs, lessness needing try to beat down that uppity n!gg@ and play macho man before the racist, xenophobic base, will take the bait.

[Yonivore]

What you believe is immaterial. Courts establish that.

And the courts established neither with respect to the Bush administration's actions.

[SnakeBoy]

and the Repugs, lessness needing try to beat down that uppity n!gg@ and play macho man before the racist, xenophobic base, will take the bait.

Is it me or has Boo become even less coherent since the GOP took the Senate?

[ElNono]

And the courts established neither with respect to the Bush administration's actions.

Because there was no challenge. We'll see if there's a challenge to that authority now. Personally, I doubt there is, given the standing precedent.

[SnakeBoy]

Do you think Obama would have made this move had the Dems held the Senate?