General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOctober 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional (Full Text)
Just released to the public today here is the October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA surveillance unconstitutional
Document is posted in .pdf form at the link below:
https://www.eff.org/document/october-3-2011-fisc-opinion-holding-nsa-surveillance-unconstitutional
--------------------------
Even their own damn hand-picked court finds it unconstitutional.
So chew on that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of their volume to be unconsitutional, because those practices were only 99.9% domestic-communications free.
It was sternly worded, but not much of a sanction.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, the opinion strongly suggests that they weren't spying on anywhere near all Americans, and that those that were 'spied upon' were due to inadequate search term controls rather than willful snoopiness.
That doesn't mean there weren't other abuses by the NSA that the court never found out, but this is a mixed bag.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Whether it's never happened, happened 0.00000001% of the time, or millions of times.
It is unconstitutional, therefore not legal, and should be prosecuted as such.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with that.
Though prosecutions are a different matter--if someone just screws up a piece of computer code, not likely to rise to a criminal offense.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)It would be prudent to put checks into place to prevent such things from happening again.
In cases of criminal negligence, if they're giving Manning 35 years, I'd be interested in seeing what they would receive.
Response to Fearless (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Would that not be the logical suggestion.
Also would one single declassified opinion not end the debate on either side as to whether they are rubber stamp or not? One doesn't seem like a representative sampling to me. You?
Response to Fearless (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Fearless
(18,421 posts)That has nothing to do with what I said. Of course warrants in general can be denied. We're speaking of warrants GRANTED that were deemed unconstitutional.
Response to Fearless (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Fearless
(18,421 posts)The court authorized a warrant. The warrant was deemed violated by that same court after it was implemented.