Projection thy name is Dhimmocrat

Back during the Bush (43) Administration there was a great deal of protesting from the usual suspects on the left regarding the potential for abuse inherent in the Patriot Act and in various related Bush policies concerning intelligence gathering and how those powers might be absused.

George W. Bush was listening, and took the affirmative step of asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the issue and issue a ruling as to what was, and was not, permitted.

In response the court, in 2008, issued a ruling which sharply limited what kinds of searches the NSA could perform.

We learn of this now because documents have been declassified which show that the Obama adminsitration in 2011 asked to have those restrictions thrown out, and the court acceeded.

Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011

By Ellen Nakashima,
Washington Post

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinionby U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Together the permission to search and to keep data longer expanded the NSA’s authority in significant ways without public debate or any specific authority from Congress. The administration’s assurances rely on legalistic definitions of the term “target” that can be at odds with ordinary English usage. The enlarged authority is part of a fundamental shift in the government’s approach to surveillance: collecting first, and protecting Americans’ privacy later.

Let the record show:  The dhimmocrats raised a valid point which the Republican Administration of George W. Bush took seriously enough to seek a court opinion on, and then to live by that opinion.  The subsequent Democratic administration of Barrak H. Obama had that ruling overturned, and proceeded to surveil American Citizens as no administration before had ever done.

What the dhimocrats warn of, they intend to do.



Glenn Instapundit Reynolds notes:

So to be clear, the Obama Administration removed a ban on spying placed there at the Bush Administration’s urging. And, it’s worth noting, did it the year before the elections.

Redacted Opinion of the FSIC is here.

Tennessee's Federal Delegation on the Use of Force in Syria
Typical: Democrats Trying to Steal the Recall Election in Colorado
  • fustian24

    As we have seen so many times on the left, it’s not the principle, it’s the power.

    Where is the anti-war crowd now that Obama wants to go to war? Where was NOW when Clinton was sexually harassing and raping women? Where was investigative reporting during Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS scandal? Hell, where was Peta when Obama talked about eating dogs?

    It’s never really about principles with these guys.

  • jim_m

    I have said many times before that the complaints of the left are always based on what they would do if they had the power. The Patriot Act is a great example. Every complaint that they have had is reflected in an abuse they are carrying out.

    The left was never against the Patriot Act. They were only ever against the possibility of Republicans having and using that power. The left fears people having power because they cannot conceive of someone having power and not abusing it. They would.

  • JWH

    I’ve been following this for a while. I’m almost to the point of voting Rand Paul in 2016.

    • jim_m

      Too bad the GOP is almost certain to nominate some closet lefty squish like Christie instead.

      • JWH

        I’m not interested in voting for a conservative. But I am interested in getting a libertarian in office. I’m not a big fan of libertarian economic policies, but I could do with a bit less surveillance.

        • Vagabond661

          I am a conservative and have been thinking about Rand Paul for some time now.

        • jim_m

          I know you wouldn’t be interested in a conservative. I was just expressing doubts that the GOP will offer anything but the same moderate nothing they have for the last 2 elections.

        • A libertarian President would only be effective if he had a substantial block of support in both the house and senate. Build your foundation before you start on the penthouse.

  • Conspicuous by his absence, but far from missed, is our soi disant cognoscenti.

    • Commander_Chico

      I do have to sleep sometimes. Also, I do other things like work and eat.

      So Obama sucks and is a hypocrite. Stipulated.

      Of course, the same leaks and information you write about in this article, you were demanding prosecution for when they were leaked during the Bush days.

      That earlier article is also relevant to this one, because it was only after the leaks were made to the NYT that the Bush administration went to the FISA court for approval.

      So I guess you suck and you’re a hypocrite, too.

      • jim_m

        I don’t think anyone during the Bush admin was trying to criminalize every leak like obama has done.

        • Commander_Chico

          With Rodney’s endorsement, as I noted. At least for things leaked during the Bush years.

          • Retired military

            Ah yes. Once again we see Chico’s Stock answer C
            Obama is bad but Bush was worse.
            So typical. (Again)

        • Not a leak, this was a declassification and release under FOIA (thus the large redacted areas in the linked document).

          As usual you FAIL on the facts.

      • This was the fruit of a FOIA request (which you’d know if you had read the piece, or the link to the actual redacted document) which was declassified and released. That’s not the same thing as a leak among us non-cognoscenti.

        • Commander_Chico

          Also “interviews with government officials.”

          • Who may indeed comment without leaking once the material is declassified.

      • You may indeed guess, or assert, and as is typical you are wrong on the facts, while effectively offering apology for an egregious violation of the People’s Rights.

        • Commander_Chico

          WTF? Bush was spying on Americans without any restriction or legal authority until 2008. And you were defending it and parroting the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” party line.

          • That is NOT what is demonstrated in the court papers you still have not read,

          • jim_m

            Chico and his buddy Bruce never let facts or the truth get in the way of a good ideology.

          • Commander_Chico

            First of all, all of the Section 702 stuff was illegal before 2008, when the Congress enacted that section.

            Second, the scope of the program was revealed in the NYT pieces that you were bitching about and it included large scale spying on Americans.

          • Retired military

            Ah yes. Once again we see Chico’s Stock answer C
            Obama is bad but Bush was worse.
            So typical. (and yet again). 3 times in one thread. A new record.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, in this case I will agree with Rodney that Obama is worse.

            The fact remains that Bush started this spying on Americans.

          • [citation required]

          • Commander_Chico

            C’mon you can’t be that dumb or partisan, can you?

            Here’s one summary:


          • jim_m

            Says the man who claims that Banghazi was all about a video. But then you’d have to read the foreign news to get the truth about what happened because the US media will never tell and Chico will believe the lies of this administration no matter what evidence is presented against them.

            Does anyone really wonder why no one will follow obama when the foreign press portrays his admin as so epically incompetent and untrustworthy?

          • Commander_Chico

            Chico told you a while back that Benghazi was a CIA base.

            But WTF does Benghazi have to do with domestic spying?

          • jim_m

            Um, read the story. The base was separate from the consulate, and it relates because you are yourself hyperpartisan and unwilling to blame obama for anything. And it relates because you are willing to accept without question anything this admin claims despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

            You are so unwilling to hold obama to account that RM has a running gag on what your excuses are and he has categorized them.

          • Long on hyperbole, free of any citation to the effect that what you allege was legal in 2008 or at any other point (prior to the current malAdministration).

      • Retired military

        Ah yes. Once again we see Chico’s Stock answer C
        Obama is bad but Bush was worse.
        So typical.

  • Never in the history of our country have we had this kind of stupidity: The New Yorker reports Obama calls Putin a Jackass, it shuts down the G-20 meeting of all things.

    • jim_m

      Also known as satire.

      You should know that obama actually asserting himself and saying something goes entirely against his character. Nope. He would just sit quietly and give Putin the finger while pretending to scratch his eye and think to himself that he is getting away with something because everyone else is too mature and too polite to mention that he’s being a petulant, childish jerk.

      • Fools and soi disant cognoscenti BIRM) rush in where angels fear to tread…

    • Commander_Chico

      Good catch, ljcaroline. Andy Borowitz is a great investigative reporter.

      • Brucehenry

        Freaking hilarious. And this ljcarolyne is not the only buffoon who bought the Borowitz piece as fact. Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit published an impassioned hissyfit linking to it, since removed. LOL.

        • jim_m

          The one thing they have never done on Gateway Pudit is take things down. They have put up many inaccurate posts and left them up despite the commenter’s complaints. Too bad you don’t have a site with a screen shot to prove it. (also, you are aware that Jim Hoft is not running the site as he has been hospitalized for some time now?)

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            You supplied proof that they took it down since I see that this story is no longer up. You did not however supply proof that it has happened before.

            I freely admit that it appears that they got suckered and fell for a joke. I still stand by my statement that this is not standard practice under Jim Hoft, who has been in the hospital with complications from knee replacement that lead to open heart surgery.

            And no, I do not consider that site a reliable source for information because they do report errors rather too frequently for my tastes.

          • Brucehenry

            Never claimed it happened before, what did you read?

            You didn’t say it wasn’t standard practice, you said they NEVER take things down. Or rather that they never have. Always a first time I guess.

            You weren’t mentioned in my comment, so I didn’t say or imply you think Gateway Pundit is a reliable source. What did you read?

            Not everything’s about you, Jim.

          • jim_m

            I don’t recall them ever taking down a post because they got duped. I have even posted in their comments section suggesting retractions when they have gotten things wrong.

            And unless you have proof that they have taken things down my point stands that Jim Hoft does not do that..

            And unlike other commenters I do not make every post about myself and I have not in this case either.

          • Brucehenry

            More “I’s” in your comment than in an Obama presser.

          • jim_m

            Because you started this with making a personal accusation about someone being a “rube”

            Go ahead and point out where there have been multiple threads where there have been posts that focused exclusively on my own experience regardless of the topic. Demonstrate on this thread where there has been an insertion of personal focus except for where you made a BULLSHIT ACCUSATION!

          • Brucehenry

            LOL relax just screwing with ya. Rube.

          • jim_m

            And now who is editing their posts? Whiner.

          • jim_m

            Hey Bruce, why not mention the I’s when Chico says something?

            Why not? Or did you have something of Chico’s in your mouth at the time?

  • Lawrence Westlake

    You can take a politician out of Chicago, but you can’t take the Chicago out of the politician. That said, the real irony here is that the erstwhile and putative right side of chattering classes are so spaced out into idiocy when Nov. 2016 rolls around a few million of them will stay home and not vote, again, but then of course they’ll be first in line to complain about the Clinton2 administration. C’est la vie.