NSA is giving your phone records to the DEA

[questionmark]

A day after we learned of a draining turf battle between the NSA and other law enforcement agencies over bulk surveillance data, it now appears that those same agencies are working together to cover up when that data gets shared.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has been the recipient of multiple tips from the NSA. DEA officials in a highly secret office called the Special Operations Division are assigned to handle these incoming tips, according to Reuters. Tips from the NSA are added to a DEA database that includes “intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records.” This is problematic because it appears to break down the barrier between foreign counter-terrorism investigations and ordinary domestic criminal investigations.

Because the SOD’s work is classified, DEA cases that began as NSA leads can’t be seen to have originated from a NSA source.

Read more

[pallidin]

"DEA cases that began as NSA leads"?

So what!

Maybe it means less cocaine, heroin and other highly destructive drugs are smuggled to warp our children. I have ZERO problem with that.

May God Bless the DEA and NSA. Don't like that? Too bad.

Edited August 5, 2013 by pallidin

[questionmark]

"DEA cases that began as NSA leads"?

So what!

Maybe it means less cocaine, heroin and other highly destructive drugs are smuggled to warp our children. I have ZERO problem with that.

May God Bless the DEA and NSA. Don't like that? Too bad.

so the NSA should also give the data to other agencies, like the ATF, just as an example?

[Babe Ruth]

Ahh Pallidin, I know your positions well!

Yes, we have the government we deserve.

[pallidin]

so the NSA should also give the data to other agencies, like the ATF, just as an example?

If they are felons, yes. Why not!!!

[questionmark]

If they are felons, yes. Why not!!!

we are talking about your data. Nobody is a felon unless convicted

[pallidin]

Ahh Pallidin, I know your positions well!

Yes, we have the government we deserve.

And I know your position. You would prefer NO government. That's a criminal mentality.

[jugoso]

"DEA cases that began as NSA leads"?

So what!

Maybe it means less cocaine, heroin and other highly destructive drugs are smuggled to warp our children. I have ZERO problem with that.

May God Bless the DEA and NSA. Don't like that? Too bad.

So you are OK with a police state that monitors ALL of iis citizens communications without due process for any and all crimes?

Documents obtained by Reuters reveal that DEA agents or other law enforcement agencies are supplied with information used from "classified" sources to initiate investigations but that internal protocols demand that investigators then "recreate" the source of where the information came from so to keep SOD's involvement off the books.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/05

They have yo cover it up because the information is being obtained in an illegal way.

[Babe Ruth]

we are talking about your data. Nobody is a felon unless convicted

Not true. The person who commits a felony is a felon. A person who gets convicted in a court for that felony is a convicted felon.

There are many many UNconvicted felons in this country, most of them are elected or appointed men in our corrupt government.

[pallidin]

we are talking about your data. Nobody is a felon unless convicted

My data? What data? I don't go to kiddie porn sites nor engage in any other felonious activity.

So, I couldn't care less if the NSA spies on me. And guess what! They couldn't care less about me either. !!!!!

So my privacy is maintained because they don't give a damn about me.

They have bigger fish to fry, and I'm not even in the lake.

So stop with this paranoia already.

Edited August 5, 2013 by pallidin

[questionmark]

My data? What data? I don't go to kiddie porn sites nor engage in any other felonious activity.

So, I could'nt care less if the NSA spies on me. And guess what! They could'nt care less about me either.

So my privacy is maintained because they don't give a damn about me.

They have bigger fish to fry, and I'm not even in the lake.

So stop with this paranoia already.

You don't have to be involved in anything to be caught up in a dragnet operation, and especially not in a dragnet computer surveillance. Being on this site, where some very extreme positions against the government are voiced (some even advocating revolutions) is enough.

[Babe Ruth]

So Pallidin, does this mean that we are an unprincipled nation for the most part? That we don't give a damn about legal principles and stuff?

That we embrace torture and indefinite detention? My, my.....

[jugoso]

So stop with this paranoia already.

If you are comfortable that your government is monitoring all communications on all citizens and then using this information to prosecute ALL "criminal activity" with no due process (warrants etc.) you are going totally against the constitution. Citizens have the right to privacy and the government must follow proper procedures.

[jugoso]

So Pallidin, does this mean that we are an unprincipled nation for the most part? That we don't give a damn about legal principles and stuff?

That we embrace torture and indefinite detention? My, my.....

Yes, that is correct. The government is unprincipled and the citizens don´t seem to care.

[Babe Ruth]

Yes, that is correct. The government is unprincipled and the citizens don´t seem to care.

Many 'citizens' are as unprincipled as the government. They support government lawlessness, and defend it in public dialogue. They rationalize it, or worse, outright support it completely, as is the case here.

[pallidin]

I don't care because I have nothing to hide, and I further respect the efforts of our government to uncover those that DO have something to hide.

[questionmark]

I don't care because I have nothing to hide, and I further respect the efforts of our government to uncover those that DO have something to hide.

I have nothing to hide either, but I would much prefer that the government respected the laws its employees have sworn to uphold. And that includes privacy laws.

[pallidin]

Many 'citizens' are as unprincipled as the government. They support government lawlessness, and defend it in public dialogue. They rationalize it, or worse, outright support it completely, as is the case here.

You consider government "lawless" and say that "many" citizens support that.

That is about as dumb a statement as one can give.

Edited August 5, 2013 by pallidin

[jugoso]

First we learn the US has been compling databases on citizens for 7 years (including phone records and all internet). But they say it is in the interest of National security (to prevent terrorist acts). Seems to shut people up. How could you be against something that has been created to make you safer? Now we learn that they are also feeding this info to the DEA. What does this have to do with National Security? Ts there a line? Where is it?

[jugoso]

You consider government "lawless" and say that "many" citizens support that.

That is about as dumb a statement as one can give.

The government IS breaking the law Palliidin and the citizens aren´t doing "jack" about it. That is a fact. There are numerous examples of the US breaking its own laws as well as Iternational ones.

[pallidin]

Feeding felonious drug activity to the DEA? More power to the NSA for doing this.

[pallidin]

The government IS breaking the law Palliidin and the citizens aren´t doing "jack" about it. That is a fact. There are numerous examples of the US breaking its own laws as well as Iternational ones.

Hahahahhaaaaaa!!!!! Welcome to the spy world.

And no, Congress approved those activities, in concert with special international partners of considerable influence. So it's not breaking the law.

[Kowalski]

"DEA cases that began as NSA leads"?

So what!

Maybe it means less cocaine, heroin and other highly destructive drugs are smuggled to warp our children. I have ZERO problem with that.

May God Bless the DEA and NSA. Don't like that? Too bad.

And why does it concern you or the government whether people do drugs or not? It's none of their business or yours. As long as their not out robbing and killing people to get the money for their drugs, who cares??

And in case you haven't noticed, our "War on Drugs" has been an utter failure.

CNN) -- In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished."

This week marks the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933, but Mencken's plea could easily apply to today's global policy on drugs.

We could learn a thing or two by looking at what Prohibition brought to the United States: an increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production and distribution and widespread anger with the federal government.

Here we are, four decades after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and $1 trillion spent since then. What do we have to show for it?

The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. What a waste of young lives.

The facts are overwhelming. If the global drug trade were a country, it would have one of the top 20 economies in the world. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the global illegal drug tradeis worth more than $320 billion. It also estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world, yet 90% of them are not classified as problematic.

In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws.

How would our society, our communities and daily lives improve if we took the money we use running a police and prison state and put it into education and health? Treating drugs as a health issue could save billions, improve public health and help us better control violence and crime in our communities. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from overdoses and drug-related diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C, because they didn't have access to cost-effective, life-saving solutions.

A Pew study says it costs the U.S. an average of $30,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate, but the nation spends only an average $11,665 per public school student. The future of our nations and our children should be our priority. We should be helping people addicted to drugs break their habits rather than putting users in prison.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs

[Space Commander Travis]

"DEA cases that began as NSA leads"?

So what!

Maybe it means less cocaine, heroin and other highly destructive drugs are smuggled to warp our children. I have ZERO problem with that.

May God Bless the DEA and NSA. Don't like that? Too bad.

Sorry, but looking out for suspected terrorist activity is one thing; perhaps justifiable in some circumstances, but I'm afraid this seems way, way into "Big Brother is watching you, and reporting any misdemeanours that we might suspect you of to the appropriate Authorities (even if they may not have anything to do with the security of the nation)". You really have no problem with that? Not at all? really?

[danielost]

Bush listened in on phone calls going to ad coming from the middle east. Everyone throw a fit. Obama listens in on every phone call in the country. No body says a thing. Let's not forget that they also have your emails.

They are not doing this to fight drugs or terrior. They are doing this to identify people like me, who will stand against these ppwer grabs.