General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: Federal judge rules NSA data gathering on all US telephone calls is unconstitutional
BREAKING: Federal judge rules NSA data gathering on all US telephone calls is unconstitutionalU.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon said that the agency's controversial program, first unveiled by former government contractor Edward Snowden earlier this year, appears to violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” Leon wrote in the ruling.
The federal ruling came down after activist Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit in June over the program. The suit claimed that the NSA's surveillance “violates the U.S. Constitution and also federal laws, including, but not limited to, the outrageous breach of privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the due process rights of American citizens."
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/nsa-phone-program_n_4454538.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sinkingfeeling
(57,286 posts)thing.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....and I happen to believe that the times warrant unusual powers allowed the POTUS. Obama could appoint two NEW and EXTRA justices.
Yes, I know all the furor about how Roosevelt thought about "stacking" the court.
But when the minority party is actively seeking to destroy the administration elected by the majority of the American people, then it may be time to seek this remedy.
Appoint them, keep all the others in place until the end of this administration. Then just don't replace the next two who retire. Back to business.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Of data last I heard. .
randome
(34,845 posts)The fact that the NSA specifically requested a warrant from the FISA court shows they are aware of the sensitivity of the information. That is not, by the way, me saying 'Go, NSA!' Just calling it like I see it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This is not just obtaining third-party business records. It has gone way beyond that, and because it is done by third-party contractors and not even the government itself (subject to the FOIA and court limitations), it is more intrusive than ever. Who knows what the contractors do with all the information they collect? The system has overtaken and subverted its purpose. Rather than keep us safe, it is a potential and very serious danger to each and every American.
randome
(34,845 posts)Was he able to personally spy on the President if he wanted, as he claimed?
Did he 'see things' as he has claimed? What things?
It seems unlikely that contractors have any access to personal data. Clearly Snowden had access to a whole shit-load of internal NSA documents but he has not produced one bit of information to show he could get at personally identifiable information about anyone. That's probably because contractors are specifically not allowed that kind of access.
I'm simply pointing out what the courts have previously ruled. That third-party business records do not even require a warrant. The NSA gets one anyways 'just to be safe', I suppose, but one isn't needed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The dangers of the program are obvious to anyone with eyes to see just from the documents we have seen. I have heard that something like 1% of the documents that Snowden produced has been published. I don't know whether that is true. So we cannot say that some information is NOT in the documents he produced. That would be impossible for us to know.
At least that would be impossible for those of us not in the NSA or among those in the press in whom Snowden entrusted the documents. I doubt that anyone on DU is among those trusted few.
randome
(34,845 posts)You'd think he and Greenwald would have led off with something more earth-shattering than a FISA warrant regarding third-party business records. 
Meanwhile, all these documents, even the personally damaging ones you think might be there, are being disseminated throughout the world to various news organizations who have even less security than at the NSA.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)courses in constitutional law or studied the issues involved in Snowden's case. It was a message that set off all kinds of alarms in people who have even superficial understanding of the issues concerning mass surveillance.
That is why it was released so quickly. It alerted precisely the people who should have been alerted and should now be alert.
This case will be a test for the integrity and courage of the Supreme Court.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Such drama.
In WW2, all mail that went through any international port was opened and read. We're not talking about the outside of the envelopes here, the "metadata" of the emails, we're talking about the entire contents.
All of it.
Somehow the United States managed to survive, and we caught NAZI spies doing this as well. All ruled completely legal (in secret) by the Courts at the time.
The Supreme Court is very unlikely to change the law concerning this. Hell, even this judge didn't say what this misleading title said he did. At this point, he's just asking for legal justification from the US attorneys. He hasn't made a ruling.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Our "enemies" do not have a state with a sophisticated organization. WWII only lasted 5 years for the US. The NSA system that has now been put in place is a forever investment. It is time to end it.
Don't be so sure that the Supreme Court won't enforce the law on this. This is a constitutional issue. The previous case regarding pen numbers, as I have explained, was decided on very different facts.
It is very unlikely that the NSA really needs this much metadata in order to find terrorists within the US. And the personal phone paid for by her political party, of Angela Merkel? That is just one example of a phone that does not need to be under surveillance. We have so much military in Germany that hanky-panky by their government is highly unlikely. It is more likely that we are trying to steal secrets of German industry and inventors, far more likely. It is more likely that someone has or had a perverted interest in Angela Merkel's private life. We repeatedly see situations in which prominent figures are embarrassed by sex scandals, and I always wonder how that very personal information, frequently texts of e-mails, etc. could have been discovered. Well, this NSA program may explain some of the "finds."
I strongly suspect that the NSA is collecting the metadata because it can and because it can potentially obtain material of other interest to it when it does. The entire program is overly broad and overly intrusive.
35,000 people are said to be employed in the NSA program. Figuring that the average salary is $50,000 plus insurance, plus rent on an office, plus equipment, etc. That comes out to probably an average of $75,000 to $100,000 at least per employee. That is a huge waste of money.
And I seriously doubt that Supreme Court Justices like Roberts and others want to have their metadata collected in this manner. It is naive to think that this metadata collection is really in the best interests of the citizens of the US. The government already has plenty of information on each of us. This metadata is superfluous and an invasion of our rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
The reality is that this program should be limited by Congress. It is way out of control. All the contacts between members of Congress and their constituents are listed and made available to the NSA and thus, the sitting president. In the hands of a megalomaniac president that could be the key to destroying our democracy.
The program has to be curbed.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Either it applies or it doesn't. Nor does it apply to foreigners. And precedents set during wartime are just as valid as they are from any other time period.
However, I will concede that neither of us know what the Supreme Court will do. They've certainly been willing to contradict nearly century-established precedents, such as the one they broke to decide Citizens United, and even the bizarre theory of making it so that Congress can't condition Federal dollars based on States enacting a policy during their "upholding" of the ACA. So heck, maybe they could suddenly decide this is a way to poke a thumb in the eye of President Obama, violate the third-party doctrine, and throw the underpinnings of law-enforcement to the wind.
But my money isn't on that.
As to your other points, I actually quite agree with you on many. The NSA seems like it is a huge waste of money. But this is often the case. Dark programs are always places where actual "waste, fraud, and abuse" live, since y definition they're not effective if they're out in public. However, since the President has already promised to rein this in, I believe him. Senator Feinstein is also a sharp cookie. And even Senator Wyden, who has clearly lost on this issue, likely improved things by providing some badly needed adversarial oversight. So pardon me if I believe that our President isn't actually "authoritarian" as the screamers believe, but actually trying to balance multiple national interests at once.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I really don't want the NSA listening in on my family conversations or collecting the metadata on my life.
I purposely don't keep diaries. I know how the most innocent information can be twisted to incriminate an innocent person.
And I am wondering why the Justice Department didn't use all this data to prosecute some in the Wall Street and banking communities? There was real wrongdoing in some of their dealings. It was apparent from the metadata of communications between lenders and borrowers, credit agencies and lenders, etc.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Private companies have an economic interest in violating your privacy rights. The government does not.
Furthermore, it's pretty clear what the NSA is really doing. They're pulling in yottabytes of unsearched data (and I know it's unsearched because of its size, not to mention the legal impediments and oversight) into a giant data warehouse, so that when the FBI calls up and says "We have a subpoena to find who called (555) 729-3340 in the last 6 months", the NSA can then run a batch job to find out that information and give it to them.
Note the word "subpoena". That indicates court supervision. (You don't need a "warrant" thanks to the third party doctrine.) Every single mention I've seen includes that step.
Your pizza phone call, your online porn, is of no interest to them.
But I still issue this challenge, which might cause me to change my opinion: show me the actual abuse. Not some theoretical "they might be doing something and I'm scared". Instead, show me any reasonable situation in which an innocent U.S. person has been terrorized by the NSA. I see more "authoritarian" behaviors from cops breaking up late night barfights than I ever do the Feds. And that's not even mentioning the casual racism of LE personnel. No, the NSA doesn't go exposing people's secrets, which is why the courts have continually shied away from it. No standing.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)speech is enough to constitute damage. On edit, I have to add that the Constitution guarantees your innate RIGHT to privacy in your papers, etc. When your RIGHT to privacy is violated, you have been damaged. That is the damage. Damages do not have to be loss of physical property or money or life. You have guaranteed rights in the Constitution. You suffer damage if you are deprived of those rights.
On further edit, I wonder if you are really concerned about whether there are damages in the sense of whether there is a remedy. Yes. There is a remedy. The NSA can be ordered to stop violating our fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights. That will be our remedy. If there is a remedy, there were damages. The remedy grows out of the damages.
As for this portion of your response:
"They're pulling in yottabytes of unsearched data (and I know it's unsearched because of its size, not to mention the legal impediments and oversight) into a giant data warehouse, so that when the FBI calls up and says "We have a subpoena to find who called (555) 729-3340 in the last 6 months", the NSA can then run a batch job to find out that information and give it to them."
The NSA does not need to have the data in order for the FBI to get that information. We entrust our information to our service provider. The FBI can subpoena it from the service provider with no need to go through the NSA.
The NSA and FBI are both government agencies. It is much safer to have a government agency subpoenaing documents or even formally requesting documents from a private company than to have them subpoenaing documents or requesting them from their close relations in the NSA.
And by the way, if you don't trust private companies to take care of your information, then why would you trust the NSA? The NSA is contracting this work out to private companies.
To me, that gives rise to the stink of corruption. The NSA gives lucrative contracts to private companies to do work that duplicates to a great extent what other law enforcement and private companies do. Who knows what kinds of favors or illegal activities are hidden in that kind of incestuous relationship.
As for the speculative aspect of the damages due to the spying and violations of personal privacy, is there anything more speculative than the NSA's apparent or at least stated claim that it needs to obtain all the metadata in order to get the data relevant to its search for terrorists? Hidden within that claim is the speculation that anyone within reach of the NSA's dragnet for records could be a terrorist or assist in locating terrorists.
We have only to observe that the NSA missed the Boston Bombers and has also missed numerous drug dealers, mass killers, etc. to realize that the NSA's speculation is pure bureaucratic CYA mumbo-jumbo. Face it, the NSA is violating the Constitution and our personal rights to privacy so that in the future it will be able to vindicate itself by claiming that it "did all it could."
No, the NSA is wasting precious tax money on collecting records it does not need when that money is needed to investigate real crimes.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)This is called the "third-party doctrine" and it is long-established Supreme Court precedent. If you give something to someone else, you don't have a Constitutional right to enjoin them from sharing it with others. You may specify it in contracts, and legislative bodies can enact various statutes to do so. But even then, that doesn't affect court subpoenas in the least. And the legislatures (specifically Congress), has explicitly given the NSA not only the authority to do this, but are also explicitly paying them to do it. So you're blaming the wrong people anyway.
As for the practical effects of searching for phone records, to go back in history would require the various service providers to keep all that information. They may, as a business, decide that is too expensive, which would cause all that data to be lost. So instead the NSA does it for them. Largely speaking, the thing the screamers are screaming about is nothing more than a secret "Internet Wayback Machine" for cellphone and email metadata, among other things (I strongly suspect they are also saving all the US Mail's records of packages delivered as well.)
Insofar as why one should trust the NSA more than private companies, as I've already stated, the NSA (unlike private companies) get no additional money if they sell your private information, which they do - constantly. In fact, it is a felony for the NSA to even release it to the public, as Snowden did. And any contractors they hire are similarly covered by the same laws.
In terms of saying that the "NSA missed the Boston Bombers", the Boston Bombers were interviewed by the FBI a year before they did their bombings, and they came to the conclusion that these were just regular kids going through typical teenaged angst. Besides, the NSA's job is pure signal intelligence, not to make judgement calls. You're thinking of the FBI (for domestic) and CIA (for foreign). And those very procedures you decry are inadequate are almost certainly why the NSA doesn't catch foreign drug dealers - more to the point, they likely know all about them, but have no ability to extradite them from Columbia. And that's not their job anyway.
Again, you keep asserting that the NSA is "violating the Constitution", but there is little sign that they're doing anything different than what has been ruled Constitutional in the past. So if you're all so terribly concerned that the NSA could potentially dig up that you like to watch porn (not exactly an uncommon thing among men, and something they're not interested in), instead of entering porn words on Google's servers (which you don't own), go out somewhere, buy old-fashioned nudy magazines off the street corner of some big city, and pay cash.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Constitution doesn't say anything about the third party idea of Smith v. Maryland.
That restraint on our constitutional rights was thought up by our government and prior Supreme Courts. The Fourth Amendment has been decimated by the Supreme Court in case after case. I will continue to advocate for the interpretation that I believe most of the signers of the Constitution understood.
We fought a very similar battle over the meaning of the First Amendment:
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html
Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html
If we don't expect privacy in our mail and e-mail exchanges and telephone calls, where do we expect privacy?
I don't expect privacy in a noisy restaurant, but I do expect privacy when I talk to my family or friends on the phone. In addition, I expect THE FACT THAT I CALL SOMEONE FROM MY HOME PHONE to be private. I expect privacy with regard to the handling of my phone bill. The Supreme Court, I believe, was wrong in the 1970s case, Smith v. Maryland. They may rethink that reasoning in the light of the excessive snooping of the NSA today.
Traditionally, clients have an expectation of privacy with regard to their conversations with attorneys and psychotherapists. That is why California, for example, provides a privilege for those conversations with regard to entering them into evidence in the courts. It takes an unusual showing of need or importance in order to overcome that privilege. When you call an attorney's office, you rightfully have an expectation of privacy about the fact that your called. Your attorney owes you a duty of confidentiality which means he owes a duty to you to keep the nature of your conversation and even, usually, the fact that he talked to you confidential.
So yes the Fourth Amendment protects your right to privacy, and if you ever need to find an attorney to get you out of a jam, you may value that right very highly. The NSA is violating that right when it collects the phone numbers that call attorneys and vice versa.
So that is where I am coming from.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)The Courts have always ruled that once you give something to someone else with the expectation that they are going to use it in some manner (including envelope addresses, telephone numbers, email address, etc.), it is no longer your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" that has fourth amendment protection.
The idea that google's servers, facebook's servers, various store-and-forward email servers, AT&T's phone system, the US Post Office, etc, are somehow "your" effect that you have an expectation to privacy over, rather than owned by third parties and stored on their hard-drives, is ludicrous. The couldn't do what you ask them to do if they did not look at the information that you gave them.
Now clearly, statues have been written to hold that many things spoken in confidence in private settings are to be protected. And the courts have backed that up. But this doesn't apply to the NSA, since they are only concerned with signal intelligence and routing data.
So don't be like the GOP trolls on D.U. screaming about their "Constitutional right" being violated because their troll post is deleted on Skinner's private server. The Constitution doesn't work that way.
That's where I'm coming from.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)metadata on calls to attorneys.
Remember, although they have to get a subpoena (at this time anyway) to obtain the content of the calls, e-mails and other communications, they are saving or will soon be saving that content.
Let's say that an attorney is representing a client in a federal court. The attorney calls witnesses and experts and does legal research over office phone numbers or the internet. It is possible that a federal attorney tracking the communications of the attorney's client will come upon the link between that attorney and the suspect client. The NSA can give that information about the attorney's research and probably will "inadvertently" supply it to the FBI.
Remember,
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a governmental agency belonging to the United States Department of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal investigative body and an internal intelligence agency (counterintelligence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation
Thus, the FBI can receive information that should be privileged since it is the research of the attorney for a defendant whom the Justice Department is investigating, possibly prosecuting.
The Justice Department may claim that there is no sharing of information between the FBI and the prosecuting attorney, but the purpose of the FBI investigation is to provide information for prosecutors as they pursue their cases.
The Constitution guarantees defendants (certain defendants) the right to counsel and in other ways guarantees a fair trial. But making the metadata of the communications of defendants' attorneys, and that is all defendants', available to the Justice Department without the process of a warrant or subpoena, is really, really unacceptable.
Why is the subpoena so important? Because the attorney for the defendant can go to court and protest that the material being subpoenaed is irrelevant and subject to attorney privilege. The attorney can mask or black out information that the Justice Department should not have. This would, for example, include information on calls not relevant to the case at hand.
Thus, the NSA is violating more than just our Fourth Amendment rights. I can't believe that a mature attorney could agree to this program. I really wonder what kind of attorney OK'd it. I can't believe it really.
Another example: a client comes to an attorney's office with a case that involves explosives or some other dangerous substance. The attorney knows nothing about explosives or whatever and investigates. What is the first thing he/she does? Googles the words and concepts with which he/she is unfamiliar. What if someone accused of terrorism or someone who suspects another person of terrorism comes into the attorney's office and the attorney begins to investigate. The attorney has certain ethical obligations to advise the police if he believes that life is endangered. But what if that is not the case? Is the NSA going to turn around and investigate the attorney as a terrorism suspect because of the attorney's attempt to inform him or herself and assist his or her client?
The NSA is clearly violating a number of constitutional rights with this program. It is just not acceptable at all. And after watching the 60 Minutes program, I realize that they are hiring inexperienced, young and naive nerds with very little education to do their work. That is just reprehensible. These young people cannot possibly understand the social and political context of the work they are performing. Snowden was the exception. But then he was no longer that young and he probably at least read newspapers.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...illegal prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory evidence. NOT this fantasy of tracking the phone calls of defense attorneys.
(By the way, I know this because a direct friend of mine was subject to this abuse, and spent two years in jail before being released because the prosecutor withheld several pieces of crucial exculpatory evidence.)
What's the kicker in all this? About the only way that defense attorneys can fight this sort of stuff is to subpoena phone records of the corrupt prosecutors - a capability you would like to see go away, it sounds like.
Again, what I'm talking about are actual things that have happened. Not nightmares of what might possibly happen in some grand conspiracy theory fever dream that the NSA, FBI, CIA, and Prosecutors offices all decide to break the law. The only way a defense attorney could have his phone-records searched without warrant (not merely saved, but searched), is if they were calling internationally (where there is a reasonable expectation they are speaking to a foreigner), or because of a Court-issued subpoena.
You keep coming back to saying that the "NSA is clearly violating a number of constitutional rights", but again, the Constitution does not work that way. And furthermore it shouldn't: the first thing any criminal needs, be it drug dealer, or corrupt cop, is "privacy" so other people can't see what they've done. This is the reason why police absolutely hate to be photographed, and are trying to use the very "privacy" laws you think the Constitution demands, to stop it. There is good reason to believe that one of the reasons for the dramatic drop in crime over the last 30 years is the increase in private security cameras - that show indisputably what really happened. And frankly, that's what we need more of, not less of.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)happened but that was also general enough to encompass the many wrongs that were unimaginable at the epoch.
Until recently, very recently, the government denied the existence of these programs. There were whistleblowers but until Snowden came forth with his cache of documents, attempts by potential or known victims of the program could not even obtain standing in court to present their cases.
So, we will have to wait until more specific documents are published, the names of targets known and the outcomes of specific cases until we can do more than imagine what has happened or can happen.
When the Supreme Court decides a case, it often considers hypothetical situations in which its decision or ruling might apply. The situations I have described are hypothetical, but some of them will occur if the NSA program is allowed to continue as it is without legal supervision, without adequate judicial oversight in courts other than the apparently ineffectual FISA court.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...today we spend slightly under 6%.
So please don't try to tell me that the Constitution outlaws intelligence. That just doesn't fly.
Further, courtroom hypos need to have some semblance to reality. "What if there is a grand conspiracy among dozens of different massive government agencies, all completely airtight, to commit felonies all to ruin my life?" is not realistic. You walk down that path, and you can justify destroying all sorts of worthwhile government agencies and the work they do.
I take the hard-left's foaming at the mouth about the NSA about as seriously as I take the hard-right's foaming about FEMA. But the Courts won't take "they could be making secret death camps and who would know?" arguments seriously. And for good reason.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When I was a child, our teachers taught us that in the USSR, people had to have identification passes and permits to travel.
Guess what, if you want to go further than a across town with public transportation, you will probably have to show a credit card or some other identification, and if you fly, you have to open your bags for inspection in order to travel.
If I and millions of others had not seen our country slide more and more toward less and less personal freedom when it comes to travel, search and seizure, etc., we would not be so worried about it all.
But the difference between what we were told about our country 50-60 years ago and the reality of this surveillance state makes me realize that we are going downhill fast.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to privacy when it is guaranteed in the Constitution in several provisions beginning with the First Amendment right through to at least the Seventh. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not just include the Third Amendment in order to save American citizens the cost of feeding soldiers in their homes. They put it there so that soldiers could not camp out in our living rooms. And that is what the NSA is doing when it collects the data on our personal communications with our friends, our business partners and co-workers, our doctors, our pastors and our lawyers. Just camping out in our living rooms. It is disgusting and perverted quite frankly.
Third Amendment -- the one nobody thinks really means anything. I didn't until I learned of the NSA surveillance and collection of metadata.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/third_amendment
I very much agree with the court that stated that considering the new developments in technology and the vast sweeping surveillance that the NSA has instituted in recent years, Smith v. Maryland, decided in the 1970s before the high-speed computers to analyze our telephone information, should not be the deciding precedent. We need a decision that fits the facts of our time.
And the collection of all this data since sometime in 2001 possibly as early as February of 2001 has not brought sufficient benefits, not prevented terrorist attacks in numbers big enough to justify the terrible intrusion on our right to privacy.
It is not those of us who are defending the Constitution who should be required to defend our viewpoint. It is those who are defiling the Constitution with their dirty surveillance who should prove that the surveillance is truly justified. They haven't. And I do not believe that they ever will.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...but it almost certainly won't come from this judge, if he even does make an adversarial ruling. The FISA courts are already overseen by already nominated and confirmed Federal judges, who have every bit the power than normal judges do (and more). The appellate and supreme courts are the only bodies that can overrule them, not their peers in lower courts.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of judges especially picked for the job. The broader aspects of the surveillance excesses involve political issues. The issues are of too great a political and civic concern to be decided in secret by courts potentially selected for their bias in favor of surveillance. The cases concerning surveillance should be decided in open courts at public hearings. This is necessary because the NSA has overstepped already.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...the Constitution leaves it up to Congress to establish lower courts, which it has. And part of this is segmenting not only into different jurisdictions, but also different aspects of the law. We have tax courts and admiralty courts, in which the judges there are experts in that section of the law. And no other court has a say-so in matters that cover their jurisdiction. This includes FISA courts.
So setting aside that I disagree with your belief that this is a bad system, what is categorically true is that this is the system we have.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When the FISA court authorizes and unelected department of the government to collect at random the communications data on virtually all and any citizens, it is adjudicating matters that directly concern me. The deliberations and activities of that court should be public. I realize that warrants are generally requested in closed hearings. But they are served on the party to be searched and thus, they can be challenged in the courts.
The problem with the FISA court is that they are issuing some sort of order that sidesteps the process of an individual warrant and the person who is being searched is never given notice, never served with the warrant. I think that is a violation of the Constitution's protections under the Bill of Rights.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they would reward you. I cant imagine a "politically liberal" person defending the NSA as you do.
Dont you realize we are at war. It's a class war and the lower classes are losing terribly. But you side with the heavy handed, authoritarian NSA. I mean think about it. Do you think that a ultra-conservative like general Clapper cares a damn about the 99%? A good rule of thumb is dont side with the conservatives, and the conservatives love gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, etc.
randome
(34,845 posts)If the courts ruled that just about everything the NSA does is illegal, it would have as much effect on my life and outlook as they do now: zero.
I couldn't care less if the NSA has copies of the phone data that the telecoms already have. And I couldn't care less if that practice is ended.
Not only does it not effect me, it has no effect on anyone else beyond the promotion of vague fears of what might happen, someday, somehow.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I would point out that your rationalizations are always on the side of the authoritarian state and never on the side of the people.
Tell me if you believe that the NSA is looking out for the best interest of the 99% over the 1%.
randome
(34,845 posts)I would think that's the last thing on the agency's collective mind. It's also the last thing on the mind of the IT company I work for.
Guess what? The IRS has copies of everyone's tax returns! Just think of the blackmail and damage they could do to our civil liberties!
That kind of amorphous fear makes as much sense to me as worrying about what the NSA might be up to.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We are becoming worse off every day. The Obama/Pritzker TPP will sink us altogether. But I like your approach. Drink the kool-aid and pretend that everything is fine. That the authoritarian bullies will not pick on you if you kiss their feet.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)at least you added "as I see them" which demonstrates a modicum of awareness. You're last two paragraphs illustrate a shortsightedness that's simply breathtaking.
randome
(34,845 posts)I am no more inconvenienced by the NSA having copies of these records than I am by the telecoms having them. Neither is anyone else, so far as we know.
The vague fears and screeching of 'Keep your hands off my metadata!' is way overdone, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)Clearly, not all members of the judiciary agree with your claim that its legal. YOU can't even recognize that real fact, rendering discussion with you on this topic, pointless.
ta ta. and try a little logic. at least once. oh, and a smidgeon of intellectual honesty would go well with that.
randome
(34,845 posts)How is that 'confirmation bias' or 'intellectual dishonesty'?
Few gave a damn about metadata when it was started in 2006, although Joe Biden does come to mind.
But now that Obama is in office, it's all 'Evil NSA!' 'Surveillance state!' 'Tyranny!'
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Of Course, that was 2006 Joe Biden.
He has "evolved".
Now, everything is just Peachy because it is the Democrats doing it.
You will know them by their WORKS.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...calling the U.S. "Authoritarian". It is most entertaining, in a sick sort of way. But it does make me feel happy to know that I am in the correct party, given that disassociative personalities are confined to the extreme edges of the Democratic party writing on a website, rather than being front and center as they are with the Republicans.
We are not in a "WAR" with the 1%. And you don't speak for the "99%". Hell, if you actually spoke for 99% of the U.S. public outside of your own little delusions, the 1% would not have the power they do. Instead of war, what we have right now is an econo-social problem where many of the world's poor are being able to compete, tilting the playing field against the U.S. poor and middle class, and wealthy owners are benefiting disproportionately.
Further, the whole NSA thing is a clear distraction from working on that problem. Let me give you a clue as to why over entitled white libertarians focus on the NSA, instead of things like racist cops who beat in heads. It's because pretending that the government is looking at their porn is about the only way they can feel the sweet sweet moral sanctimony of feeling "victimized". (By the way, I have not yet seen a single person complaining about this so-called issue who isn't lily white - one DWB stop resets your expectations on what is and is not "authortarian".)
When people start talking about the "big bad government" NSA, they stop believing that the government can do anything to help the problems you are most concerned about. In fact, that's why they do it. If you get rid of the NSA, the next step will be to get rid of the IRS (which has even more access to private information). And then we'll really be back in the guilded age again.
But no one is going to get that through your thick skull, Rhett. Luckily enough, we don't have to. This thing will go into the courts and almost certainly die a death of a thousand cited precedents.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
neverforget
(9,512 posts)
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)That's something you added yourself.
Are you unable to read, or unable to answer so create a strawman to argue against instead?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
neverforget
(9,512 posts)You said:
"Further, the whole NSA thing is a clear distraction from working on that problem. Let me give you a clue as to why over entitled white libertarians focus on the NSA, instead of things like racist cops who beat in heads. It's because pretending that the government is looking at their porn is about the only way they can feel the sweet sweet moral sanctimony of feeling "victimized". (By the way, I have not yet seen a single person complaining about this so-called issue who isn't lily white - one DWB stop resets your expectations on what is and is not "authortarian".)"
Gee how did I get that? 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)extreme for wanting to get Wall Street out of our politics. Conservatives like Reagan and the Bush's have been screwing the lower classes for decades and you conservatives are ok with that. You call those that want to save the middle class extreme. Corporate control is everywhere and the conservatives welcome the authoritarian control.
I want the freedoms of the Constitution while conservatives want to give up our freedoms for "promised" security.
If demanding the freedoms and liberties afforded us by the Constitution is extreme, then color me extreme.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...although neither Reagan nor Bush's 1 or 2 were Democrats, like I am. So clearly you are unable to read or comprehend. I hope that unlike teabaggers you can at least spell your protest signs correctly.
I also admire your adherence to the Constitution. Is this you?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)self a Democrat as did Joe Lieberman. A conservative is a conservative irregardless of what they call themselves.
And your insinuation that I am a teabagger because I happen to espouse The US Constitution is absurd. I bet you as a conservative, come closer to aligning with the Teabaggers than myself. Let's see, you both embrace the NSA and domestic spying. You both love the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. And how about worshiping Wall Street?
I bet the Teabaggers are ok with the TPP, fracking, and the XL Pipeline. Whose side do you stand on?
For the last 30 years conservatives have worked to destroy the lower classes. Are you proud to be a conservative?
" So clearly you are unable to read or comprehend." Really? Really? I am not surprised that you went there.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...combined, of course, with arrogance that manages somehow to overmatch your ignorance.
So unless you have a Juris Doctorate in Constitutional law, spare us your ass-pulled pronouncements about what major government law, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and reviewed by the courts, is unconstitutional or not.
Not to mention your bald assertions about what other people think, based on no facts other than the endless eddies of your colorful (hate-filled) imagination, combined with simplistic thinking that puts preschoolers to shame.
There are all sorts of interesting complexities in the world, how best to solve energy issues (I'm actually in favor of well-managed nuclear power, not fracking) but I'm not going to waste time sharing them with a wingnut who thinks President Obama is "authoritarian".
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Conservatives want to cut Social Securty and Medicare. Conservatives support Wall Street and the Patriot Act. Teabaggers are themselves conservatives. Speaker Boner is a conservative. And you call yourself conservative. I dont understand how a Democrat can be a conservative.
I would hope calling me a wingnut should be beneath you. I hope no one gives you the satisfaction of alerting on you.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)to know what is unconstitutional.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)In fact, if you've taken an average 300/400 level course at a reputable school about constitutional history or public policy, that makes you fairly well informed.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They've been trying to destroy the middle class and starve the poor for decades now!
Denying that the class war exists is a hallmark of fascism. Is that really where you want to be?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ridiculous and dangerous to democracy. The FISA Court has now been exposed as nothing but a rubber stamp operation to try to justify wrong doing on the part of these government agencies. In a REAL court, it couldn't stand up to scrutiny and for good reason.
Not to mention where is there a law that covers a 'mass warrant' on hundreds of millions of people??? Did they ask for individual warrants on each person in the US they were spying on?
I called Verizon to cancel our cell phone and told them why. They DENIED doing what we know now they were doing so I referred them to a few news sources and asked why they would deny doing something they claim was 'legal'?
What you are saying is that if I want to spy on my neighbor through their window but don't want them to see me, I can hire a third party to do the work for me??
Go ahead and do that and see what happens to you. Thankfully whether it is first, second or third party unlawful, with no probable cause, spying, it is ILLEGAL and I am glad to see this in REAL COURTROOMS now where judges do understand the importance of the laws of the land.
randome
(34,845 posts)You can say 'Nothing trumps the Constitution' but that's ignoring the centuries of interpretations and nuances that have add and subtracted to the law of the land.
It's a glib phrase that means different things to different people.
That's why we have a judicial branch of government in the first place -to point out where laws may and may not go.
You want to change the law, go ahead, it's no skin off my nose. But to say that metadata collection is against the Constitution is simply ignoring reality that it is currently not against the Constitution.
And if you're this upset about phone data, imagine how upset you'll be when you learn what the IRS has on you!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)now. Yes, we have had attempts to destroy the rights and freedoms granted in the Constitution in the past which is what you are using to justify destroying people's rights right now. But egregious violations of people's rights have always been corrected eventually due to the fact that people actually VALUE their rights.
Your arguments FOR these violations by using other violations ('see what the IRS has on you' eg) is particularly weak and only serves as a reminder of how much work needs to be done to restore the people's Constitutional rights, everywhere they have been violated over the years. I will add to my list of things that need to be fixed.
As one German citizen noted regarding the violations of rights in his country, to explain why they didn't rise up against them when it was still possible 'it all happened incrementally, you were uncomfortable with some of the policies but were waiting for something BIG, and by then it was too late'. Fortunately, thanks to the courage of the Whistle Blowers, we don't have to wait until it is too late, and this ruling is a step finally, in the right direction.
randome
(34,845 posts)Really? That's what you think of the phone metadata? And then delving into Nazi-ism besides?
The hyperbole blows me away. It's like using a cannon to swat a fly!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)peek into people's personal lives, through the window, opening their mail (a federal offense) or in any other way and of course we are protected from such crimes by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution especially egregious when it is the Government doing it.
I hope to be able to join a lawsuit against Verizon along with millions of other customers whose rights were violated by them. This ruling will certainly help the victims of the Government spying program.
Unless Congress does what it did last time, covers for the criminals, passes a 'retroactive' law again, making their crimes legal.
That vote Obama cast to support that outrageous and transparent abuse of power, nearly cost him the election airc.
But times have changed and people are a lot more informed now than they were then. We'll see if Congress decides to abide by their oaths of office this time, or once again, protects the criminals. It will be very risky now for them to try that trick again.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)He is part of the problem.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Rest assured, he and his family will be very well taken care of. But he was talking about bleeding US as early as 2006.
Barack Obama in 2006: "This is not a bloodless process."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)But I also am weary of the constant rose-colored glasses attempts to suggest that this emerging corporate fascism is all against his will and anathema to him, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. He has worked consistently, skillfully, and manipulatively on behalf of the One Percent, at the expense of the 99 percent, since Day One of his Presidency. He was certainly selected to run for President and backed by major corporate interests precisely because of his aptitude and willingness to do exactly that. The systemic corruption of our political and electoral system by corporate money virtually ensures now that corporate interests get to hand-pick candidates who are already sympathetic or at least amenable to their interests and goals.
It is not necessary for Barack Obama to be cast as a hostage and victim to understand what is going on here. IMO it is beyond infantilizing to suggest that he got to the Presidency unaware of what he would be expected to do, particularly when he was courting for so long and so successfully those who expect him to do it. He and his family will be rewarded handsomely for his complicity in what is being done to America.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)imperatives trump individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, something not unexpected when corporatist-type elements control all the levers of power in government. 
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Any bets on how fast Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers rush to a mic and proclaim that this ruling will put Americans in dire danger of another terrorist attack because the NSA can't do it's "job" (spy on americans) anymore?
painesghost
(91 posts)I actually used to like her. Lately she has been for some strange policies.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I given up on her and just hope she decides to spend more time with her grandchildren after 2018, when her seat is up. That should give us a lot of time to pick a primary opponent if she wants another term in the Senate.
2banon
(7,321 posts)She revealed her true blood sucking traitorous colors way back in early 2002, wrt to the original Patriot Act and every subsequent version along with her approval to the war on Iraq. and much more.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Thats the point anyway right? Have dirt on every US official, every judge, every attorney, every journalist and EVERY AMERICAN. Then they can used their recorded conversations, emails, texts, GPS and "ambient surroundings" taps to make them do whatever they wish....true totalitarianism.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)practices, stop spying on innocent americans, and save a crap-load of money which could be redirected to cancer and heart disease research, saving yet more lives.
The one thing that a dragnet collection of all americans data accomplishes is to have a warehouse of J. Edgar Hoover files on all future politicians, business leaders, and political activists.
A warehouse full of authoritarian wet dreams.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)He had nothing compared to the NSA.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)These crooks needs to be stopped before its too late. Like Hitler. Don't wait till its too late.
malaise
(293,068 posts)Great news
randome
(34,845 posts)I doubt this goes anywhere past an appeal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Lol!
Ok. Like they're credible.
randome
(34,845 posts)Buttressed by DUers who have worked in the judicial system.
Warrants are never requested unless a prosecutor is very sure of the outcome. When a request is denied, changes are made and it is resubmitted. That's not so much a 'rubber stamp' system as it is the normal give-and-take between prosecutors and a court.
Words have meaning, especially in the judicial system. A judge cannot legitimately say there has been no judicial review when there clearly has been. This ruling won't last long, I expect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Logical
(22,457 posts)The FISA process is a joke. Like the grand jury process is a joke. Totally controlled by one side and mostly no questions asked.
randome
(34,845 posts)In the end, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong about this entire process. There are enough people clamoring for change that it needs to happen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Vattel
(9,289 posts)FISA courts have been reviewing the program in question, but that does not preclude the court in question from reviewing the plaintiff's complaint.
randome
(34,845 posts)The FISA court is part of the judicial system, like it or not.
But I suppose you could parse the judge's ruling -which he did not put into effect, btw- and say that the collection of the metadata is okay with him but 'querying it and analyzing it' is not -unless with a warrant.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
SpcMnky
(73 posts)Not to mention the constitutional garuntees of the 4th Admendment, and decree there is no debate, as authoritarians are want to do.
But I dare say there will be a debate, and if the authoritarians win this one, we all lose the foundation of many of our rights.
Thank Snowden that we even have the privilege of the debate
randome
(34,845 posts)...to not be personal possessions and therefore to not fall under 4th Amendment guarantees to privacy.
I don't think reopening that debate is harmful at all but it seems like some are hitching their wagons to a very tired and lame 'horse' since the courts have already settled the issue.
No Constitutional question is in play here. In fact, the NSA does not even need a warrant to get metadata records.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
hueymahl
(2,902 posts)Nothing new, nothing to see here.
This has been going on a long time.
Judge is not credible.
Snowden is crook. And a weirdo to boot.
LOL
All I have to say, is it is ABOUT DAMN TIME a real judge was looking at the whole unconstitutional process, not some mini version of a limited ruling from 35 years ago.
You say words matter. You say that a lot. I can tell you mean it, because you do a hell of a job twisting them to fit the story you are trying to tell.
SpcMnky
(73 posts)That was a targeted case.
Besides this goes well beyond meta-data, and as anyone well versed in politics knows the debate never ends, only in authoritarian minds.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)veveto
(11 posts)Do you stand by your claim? Remember, your credibility as a knowledgeable person in privacy matters could suffer if Klayman wins the appeal.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This case can be distinguished. I do not expect the Supreme Court to rule favorably on it at this time. But it is just a matter of time because someone will abuse it. The phone and internet records of the Supreme Court itself are just as vulnerable as are yours and mine and probably far, far more interesting and useful to spies, subversives, terrorists, etc.
I don't seriously think that anyone is that interested in my records. I lead a pretty boring life. But Justice Roberts? I can think of a lot of people including independent contractors who might like to peruse the records of his phone calls. I can't think of anything more boring other than my own phone records (family calls mostly) but hey, General Petraeus's records were probably pretty interesting before he was outed for extramarital sex.
A possible purpose for this collection of metadata could be obtaining material to blackmail important American political figures. That is just one of the most worrisome aspects of this scandal. Then there is stealing secrets. Then there is learning of business deals such as buy-outs and takeovers or even terrorist attacks by third parties in time to profit from them at the expense of those not in the know.
The opportunities for abuse in secret programs such as this and especially this one are too numerous to put into one post.
2banon
(7,321 posts)What's so hard to understand, do you suppose?
It's like having to repeatedly state the obvious, over and over and over and over again. it's bizarre.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)you can repeatedly state the obvious over and over again and they still will claim "I don't understand". Half of the talking points used by certain NSA defending posters have been repeatedly debunked, and yet they try to use them over and over again as though they haven't been debunked by 30 or more posters on a routine basis.
2banon
(7,321 posts)The patterns are almost robotic. Certainly the "rebuttals" often are.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
2banon
(7,321 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)+100000.
Thank you.
pa28
(6,145 posts)
ancianita
(42,959 posts)
Even if everyone's right about the ruling's longevity, I just want to bask in the illusion of freedom for now.
dickthegrouch
(4,308 posts)if they have no more access to their illegal surveillance?
Enquiring minds want to know.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Their purpose in this dance is to beat you bloody so you will gladly vote for corporate conservatives like Clinton or Christie.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)1) The judge claims there was no judicial oversight, but he conveniently ignored the fact that metadata was obtained via warrant signed by a Federal judge. I can link you a copy of the warrant if you want.
2) The lawsuit was brought by Larry Klayman? The same guy that ordered Obama to "put down the koran and come out of the white house with his hands up?" 
3) The judge in the article is a Bush appointee.
Very interesting.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Judge who happens to have been a federal judge at one time? What is the oath taken by a FISA judge...does anyone actually know? Why is it, with all the federal judges we have on the benches from coast to coast do we need a special set of secret judges to sign blanket warrants in complete secrecy?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I believe the FISA court was established in 1978.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Responsibility isn't to uphold the constitution...of coarse it isn't known because it is secret. ..something else which seems extra-constitutional..
ProSense
(116,464 posts)punting to the SCOTUS. From the Politico article linked to in the OP piece:
Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/16/3071061/federal-court-rules-bulk-collection-phone-records-nsa-violates-constitution-founding-fathers-agast/
Klayman. Yikes!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014597668
Unhinged!
MADem
(135,425 posts)
okaawhatever
(9,565 posts)considered "private information". To listen in on calls they need a warrant Ditto other types of internet communication. Also, some will claim the FISA court is a joke, and to the extent Roberts has selected all the judges it is more than right wing, but I've gone over the lists of applications, denials etc. (published by IFF) and while there are few recorded denials, many of the warrants were sent back for additional evidence before being approved Some were modified, and those that were likely to be denied were withdrawn.
Klayman is beyond a right wing hack. How many lawsuits did he file against Clinton when he was in office? How many of his lawsuits led to bogus investigations/evidence? Remember Troopergate and all that fun? Klayman has sued his own mother. He's funded by the most extreme right wing wackows.
I'm more concerned about the fact that Klayman is now going against his own kind so I seriously question his agenda. He hasn't been taken seriously by Repub licans for a few years now so I wonder who is funding this lawsuit? I read an article a while back when Klayman was doing something equally absurd, and the Republcans were basically disavowing him. I remember he had been sanctioned by a Judge and had other problems. The right wing reporter was saying he continued to send out press releases every time he sues someone and was trying to recapture his fame but no one was biting. Hmmm...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)He distinguishes the NSA's collection of metadata from the sort of metadata collection in the Lee case. And his argument is very reasonable.
okaawhatever
(9,565 posts)to the current ruling.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And who cares who filed the suit as long as it seeks to protect our fourth amendment rights? I seem to recall Glenn Greenwald defended some far right group's right to free speech, on the same grounds.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is no 4th amendment right to third-party business records. There is no Constitutional question in play.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The point is that the judicial process was followed even if you disagree with the ruling.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)exactly judicial process, in my books. I'm glad it's being challenged.
Aren't you?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)but what matters in this case is the FISA judge approval.
hueymahl
(2,902 posts)No, Cali doesn't care. So long as Obama comes out looking good, law and constitution should be flexible.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm fine with discussing issues, but I always have good chuckle when it gets personal.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Do you think a blanket warrant demanding that Verizon give them ALL of the data from American customers really fits the bill of a legal warrant? Warrants are supposed to be specific. You simply cannot ask for a whole nation's data.
You know better, and any attempt to say that this is judicial process must be from someone with their eyes closed, or who takes the rest of us for damned fools.
And, by the way, I want you to notice something: They asked for AMERICAN'S data, NOT foreigners. Now, this is the NSA, which has no business spying on Americans. Why does the warrant ask for American's data, and nothing else? We are specifically NOT foreigners, and they are specifically NOT supposed to be spying on us, and yet they ask, specifically, for all of Verizon's US customers' data. They FOCUSED on us, and in this warrant, they EXCLUDED foreigners' data. I'm appalled that a judge actually signed the warrant, but that does not make it legal. This agency is specifically NOT tasked with spying on Americans.
randome
(34,845 posts)Carl Bernstein said it looked to him as if the NSA has strong protections in place to prevent abuse of the metadata.
The reason for having this information in one place is two-fold:
1. In the event of a terrorist attack -or even just an investigation- the NSA does not need to go to every single telecom in the country to search out suspects' contacts. A process that would be the next best thing to impossible.
2. After the fact of an attack, they can query the metadata to learn other co-conspirators.
It's the same type of investigatory process that takes place after a crime except it's being done in the Information Age, when data is ridiculously easy to copy and disseminate.
The NSA is forbidden by law from spying on Americans unless an American is in contact with a foreign suspect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)daddies take care of them. That's why they hate it when someone tries to look behind the curtain. They dont want to know the truth. They cant handle the truth. But the truth is that the authoritarians arent looking out after the good of the 99%. That's why we are in the fucked up position we are in. Because some here dont want to shake up the status quo. They back the authoritarians that represent the 1%.
I am curious, do you think if you support the 1% that they will be grateful?
neverforget
(9,512 posts)I want to know what the probable cause is for the NSA to collect metadata about me. Are we all potential suspects or what?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Likely it's been updated, but the tenor of the decision is not definite as the OP indicates.
Wonder if this will end up going before the SCOTUS, and what they will do with it.
As ugh as the whole thing is, aren't there regular procedures for survelliance on RWNJs like Klayman?
I'm betting the wingnuts are toasting each other since that wingut seems to be getting away with his threats.
But then, our rights are only as safe as those of the unpopular in society. We need this broad net eliminated as much as possible in case of a wingnut takeover. Oh, what am I thinking of?
'Just a piece of paper' doesn't care.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)He stayed his own injunction. And it's a Klayman case before a Bush judge. Which is why he stayed his own injunction. He's a conservative judge afraid of both Klayman and Bush types.
The Obama Admin will appeal, including real reforms, and they will win.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)This judge just gave our FOES the Keys to the Kingdom!!!11!!!1
We must submit to the Surveillance State for our own good!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Dopers_Greed
(2,647 posts)But one worth celebrating.
Don't think the fascists are going to let this go easy.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Had he seen last night's 60 Minutes, he'd be thanking the NSA for all their selfless and essential spying on citizens.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
progressoid
(52,619 posts)USA! USA! USA!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
cstanleytech
(28,243 posts)Atleast not until SCOTUS either declines to hear the appeal on this judges ruling which thereby upholds it or they hold a hearing and then agree with the judge because if they hear it then it could just as likely go the other way and they could sign off on it in the interest of national security or some such bs.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The NSA still does not give a shit about a court rulings.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)okaawhatever
(9,565 posts)and mostly to oversight, but it will be a cold day in hell before I thank Snowden for anything. Ditto Greenwald, who HAS been found to have violated his client's privacy. By illegally taping them no less.
Snowden is not Pancho Villa.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Say nothing
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)could be captured.
I would consider this a heroic act with no need to prosecute.
Technically, you may have broken a law by tripping him up, but in reality, this is obviously something one should not be prosecuted for. In fact, I'm not even sure that stopping him would be considered a crime at all
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's been stated before: there are proper avenues in place to blow the whistle on things like this. Snowden IGNORED those avenues, stole classified documents, ran to another country, and SLOWLY is releasing those documents to the public.
Had he used one of the proper avenues, opinions of him would be different, methinks. In my mind, he is a traitor. Had he done it properly, I may have considered him a hero. My personal opinion, is that he has nothing truly damning, and is releasing cherry picked info to make it look worse than it actually is. Time may prove me wrong, but the releases have slowed to a crawl, and he hasn't released anything that wasn't already public knowledge, or was a practice that was ended years ago. Once again, that's just one asshole's opinion.
But stealing is still a crime.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)
First of all, imagine a shooter was killing people in a school and you tripped him up with your foot, so he
I would consider this a heroic act with no need to prosecute.
Technically, you may have broken a law by tripping him up, but in reality, this is obviously something one should not be prosecuted for. In fact, I'm not even sure that stopping him would be considered a crime at all
All Snowden has done is tripped up a criminal(s).
Not only is it appropriate, it is our duty as citizens, IMHO.
Secondly, and as fact, failure to report a crime can make you an 'accessory after the fact':
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Breaking the law to show a crime is still a crime, and should be punished.
Like I said, had he used the proper avenues, there wouldn't be a debate about Snowden and his motives.
And once again, this is just one asshole's opinion. YMMV.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)have been criticized on everything from how they are releasing information, why they didn't do a bulk release of all the information, to the fact that they didn't use "proper channels".
I'm of the opinion that the only thing some people are truly critical about is not about their methods and motives, but that they released anything, at all.
And that's just my opinion, YMMV.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)them to follow that would have resulted in anything other that a cover up, but that's just me!
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)that would have gladly used that information for good. But that wasn't even ATTEMPTED. Instead, he got the job with the intent to steel data and release it via the international press. Time will tell, I suppose. But on this, I'm skeptical.
I remember under Bush, most of us were pissed that they were wiretapping WITHOUT warrants, and bypassing the FISA court. Now, they're USING the FISA court, and we're just as hair on fire.
I do find it suspect that two people with libertarian leanings (Snowden and Greenwald) are pushing this information under this current administration. And also that some of the info (for instance, the Germany spying) is outdated, yet still accepted as happening now.
I'm not trying to persuade the argument either way, but I am stating my opinion on this matter. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.
SpcMnky
(73 posts)"he didn't expose the crimes properly "
too, funny 
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)When you know of a crime, do you steal evidence, take it to another country, and release it via international press? Or do you contact the proper authorities?
Take your ridicule elsewhere.
SpcMnky
(73 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Who is Greenwald's "client"?
And, even if he did "tap" somebody's privacy, how does that compare with the snoops at NSA tapping? 1 versus billions?
Do you think that a government agency should be immune to scrutiny by the people it serves (or, in the case of NSA, the people it spies on)? Or, the press?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)It was a 
moment. I laughed really hard!
SpcMnky
(73 posts)Only fools and tyrants shoot the messenger.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Put up the picture, and the full wording:
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!
Sid
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)
polichick
(37,626 posts) 
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts) adavid
(140 posts)reveal government criminality. He revealed what many believe should be criminal (thanks to the anti-freedom patriot act)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)hueymahl
(2,902 posts)So long as team D is in power, unconstitutional use of power is OK. And the leader of team D can do no wrong.
Seriously, I do wish President Obama would take a principled stand on this.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Everyone has secrets, and the NSA/CIA/NRO or any of those alphabet soup agencies job is to know all secrets.
Heck, I am willing to admit that they think they are doing the right thing. Yet they are human beings. Every human being has a way of looking at the world that aggrandizes their role in the world. Humans a fallable and we must always protect against giving any person or organization too much power.
Zorra
(27,670 posts) 
uponit7771
(93,491 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)cuz he only said that it was likely to be unconstitutional, but that being said, YAY!!! a step in the right direction.
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)I hate giving them clicks!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Provided so that Drudge, Rush, et al, can explode (i.e. jump up and down, with their hair on fire), shouting "SEE!!! Obama really IS Re-Writing The Constitution!!! TOLD YOU!!! ARREST HIM!!! IMPEACH HIM!!!"
That's all this article (and this 'ruling') seems to amount to.
So, nice job, HuffPo, providing the RW'ers with a BS headline that they can copy and claim "See, even the LIBERAL press agrees!!!"
The proper headline would be "Right-Wing Judge Opines that Right-Wing Whacko Klayman "Appears Correct" that NSA Spying is Unconstitutional, Does Exactly Nothing".
Hey, I'm all for the SCOTUS weighing in here, and hope this program gets curbed heavily, and performed with MUCH more oversight. But this particular so-called 'ruling' ... at this point, amounts to squat, other than 'bullets' for the Loonie Right. It's pretty much just "symbolic", IOW.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) SpcMnky
(73 posts)Penicilino
(97 posts)No need to find a Limbaugh related excuse. It's OK to defend the NSA. We respect your minority opinion.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)It seems like the tide may be turning on this and a lot of other fronts.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)we do it for them.
Nothing is going to stop the paid paranoids that are the US intelligence establishment.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)and overturn this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)didn't ask for a broader order.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The Judges ruling that the plaintiff's lack standing. So by limiting this suit, they get rid of the first line of defense, which is that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit. The claims of national security and vital national interest also fall by the wayside as we are only talking about one person, and you can't claim that one person is a vague threat.
The end result should be (in a just and fair world which I wish we lived in) that the SCOTUS rules that the NSA must have a warrant for each individual of interest before they can collect any data.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I don't see that happening.
As for your first two paragraphs... you missed my point entirely.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Hope this ruling survives all the way through the Supreme Court. Then we all must stay hyper vigilant to protect our Democracy better then we have been doing.
spanone
(141,066 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Drug Warriors hava been saying "fuck you" to the fourth amendment for decades.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts) no more banksters
(395 posts)countryjake
(8,554 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/edward-snowden-ruling-nsa-surveillance
Snowden said the ruling, by a US district judge, justified his disclosures. “I acted on my belief that the NSA's mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts," he said in comments released through Glenn Greenwald, the former Guardian journalist who received the documents from Snowden.
"Today, a secret program authorised by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many,” said Snowden, whose statement was first reported by the New York Times.
Judge Richard Leon declared that the mass collection of so-called metadata probably violates the fourth amendment, relating to unreasonable searches and seizures, and was "almost Orwellian" in its scope.
He also expressed doubt about the central rationale for the program cited by the NSA: that it is necessary for preventing terrorist attacks. “The government does not cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack,” wrote Leon, a US district judge in the District of Columbia.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Victory is OURS!!!!! (for now!!!!)
bucolic_frolic
(54,113 posts)Sounds like my driver's license!
And the fees they charge for it.
Why isn't a license or registration PERMANENT until changed?
Oh. Fees. It's always about money.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Get them all on record as this is digested, and hammer away at them. It will ultimately take an act of Congress to stop some of this, and those who are on the wrong side of the issue can be swept away in a surprising mid-term sweep election. That's my dream, anyway.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Three judges whose opinions carry no weight with the NSA.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)step up and apologize.
But I won't, and not just because I have most of them on Ignore.
ETA: hard to say which way the Supremes will go if it gets there: National Security Is All but then so is Big Business...and many big internet/communications companies have been/will be burned by their association with the NSA. So, which way will an authoritarian, corporatist Court vote? Inquiring minds want to know.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)WOW
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Because of "significant national security risks and novelty of the constitutional issues".
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)"My opinion is just a formality since this is going to the Supreme Court either way."
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)taking it all back because it'll be overturned on appeal or by the Supes anyway.
rocktivity
(44,983 posts)Your fifteen minutes are up, NSA!
rocktivity
Phlem
(6,323 posts)What is this new strategy?
Is it easier to just say sorry afterward than trying to get permission in the first place. How fuckin grade school.
And I'm sorry but this is 1000% typical of Republicans/the NSA, etc.... an old tired strategy that still seems to fucking work.
-p
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Deep13
(39,157 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- K&Rwildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Everything the NSA could possibly ever do was emphatically made prospectively legal under ... the Carter Administration or something?
Lenomsky
(340 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)
SpcMnky
(73 posts)it begins to resemble the migraine inducing, ubiquitous, sonic pile-driver spit of inane, emotionless banter, gushing forth from the so-called "M$M" that our times are unfortunately, terribly afflicted with.
Uncle Joe
(64,285 posts)Thanks for the thread, WillyT.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)adavid
(140 posts)repeal the anti-American patriot act. Because THAT is what gives the NSA all of its power.
Hekate
(100,132 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)this will sit well with "the boys".