Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Says Wiretapping Immunity Will Stand
wiredmikey writes "The U.S. Supreme Court said this week it will let stand an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by privacy advocates. The top U.S. court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the NSA monitor its customers' phone calls and Internet traffic. Plaintiffs argue that the law allows the executive branch to conduct 'warrantless and suspicionless domestic surveillance' without fear of review by the courts and at the sole discretion of the attorney general. The Obama administration has argued to keep the immunity law in place, saying it would imperil national security to end such cooperation between the intelligence agencies and telecom companies. The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate case later this month in which civil liberties' group are suing NSA officials for authorizing unconstitutional wiretapping."
To the law.
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I've been saying this for years, the REAL issues aren't brought up in the debates.
They are queitly mumbled under the breath of canidates, and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
So essentially, they have openly stated that because the practice is useful to the government ut should not be subjected to judiciary review, despite clear concerns from privacy advocates, and seemingly legitimate legal challenges to the validity of the practice?
Since when did the judiciary stop doing its job and become rubber stampers?
Where are the mod points when I need them! I don't even bother watching political debates live because the debate questions tend to be a quick rehash of the things we hear on a daily basis.
Can we get some real discussion on the issues please?
... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Or worse.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Not to defend any of this crap, but how is Romeny culpable at all?
I'm a strong advocate for privacy, but people should realize that it's incredibly easy to make a nuclear bomb, once you have the enriched uranium. Rather than shut this program down, perhaps the public should demand that the data mining be administered under a very concise mission statement. The public could even help to draft it. That perhaps makes more sense than just railing against ALL data mining operations.
This wiretaping rule is no problem to John Q. Public. As far as they're concerned this only affects people who are doing wong.
The only way to get the Obama Admin off of this is maybe make it a Tea Party issues - "Hey Teapartiers! That Socialist Obama has all these powers to spy on you God fearing Christians so he knows whose guns to take away!"
Really, I'm not joking. It WILL work!
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
â" James Madison (father of the US Constitution)
"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."
Wonderful little police state you got there.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Why would it come up in the debates when both parties feel they have the right to warrantless wiretapping. Kinda hard to debate something when there's no difference in viewpoint.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
As much as I like the guy, this would be the thing that would get me to vote against him. If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.
Most people buy what they are told in highschool about the division of power and all that stuff. There is no need to go over it again, we all are well aware of what we were taught.
The true purpose, at least for the last 100 years or so, is to justify the behavior of government and give it a stamp of approval. You can't argue about the constitutionality of a item that the supreme court ruled on, right? They are the 'ultimate decider', the 'supreme court' that decides on the what the constitution says and what it means.... This is all what we are taught.
And frankly. It's all bullshit. The 'division of power' was created to purposely make government inefficient. Its setup to slow down the government so that 'the people' can keep up and not be fooled into giving up rights for this or that crisis. The public is subject to boughts of a sort of temporary insanity were some popular fear or event can be used by clever statesmen to forward their agenda to the detriment of the population's interest.
The Supreme Court is NOT a check on the power of government. It was never designed that way and it never has been used in that way.
The proof of what I say is this: The Supreme Court is part of the government. Saying that SCOTUS is intended to limit the power of government is like saying that congress or the president's job is to limit the power of government. It's BS. They are not going to limit themselves... they are a third of the government. You don't get to vote on them, you don't get to vet them. The member of the court is appointed through politics. They are carefully chosen and selected by their compliance and philosophical agreements with the use of government power as a means to any end. If they showed any signs of a willingness to actually limit government, or whatever, then they would of never been appointed in the first place.
What the modern purpose of SCOTUS is for propaganda. They decide what is and what is not constitutional so you can't argue about it. You think that the indemification for wiretapping is illegal and against the constituion? Well 'Fuck you'.. the supreme court disagrees and they are right and you are wrong because they have the authority to decide these things and you do not.
THAT is the true purpose. They exist to squash arguments and movements. They are their to help EXPAND government by providing the justification and legal basis for anything the government wants to do. That is the criteria used to decide who gets appointed by the other 2 branches. Why would 2/3rds of the government choose the final 1/3rd that has any chance or desire to fight them over what they want to accomplish?
The check against federal power is YOU. It's YOU and your local governments. Your states and your local representatives. It's the 10th admendment. It's your refusal to obey and the refusal of the law enforcement agencies in your local areas to support and enforce out bullshit laws.
And this is why the Federal government is working it's ass off to eliminate local law enforcement. They are busily wrapping up every bit of law enforcement they can into a nation-wide law enforcement organization. Not to make it easier to fight terror or war on crime.. but to make sure your local police force is on their side in any conflict.
HA!
The only issues that are even mentioned in 'debates' are ones that don't matter to the politicians (and more importantly, the ones sponsoring a candidate). This is why you will never ever hear a thing about the thousands arrested by government across the country protesting the bankers and wall street and such, yet not a single banker has been prosecuted even where outright fraud has been admitted and proven. They won't talk about the mercenaries who took over when 'active military personnel' withdrew from iraq. They won't talk about the unsustainable financial madness or anything of meaning. They speak trivially like insane twilight zone propagandists while the world falls down around their oblivious heads. They are there to toss off some platitudes and stir up wedge issues without substance that costs them nothing. Anything of real value to them is most often something that has bribed both major political parties.
And the moderators come from the media, which exists by the whim of politicians(both in the violent domineering sense with laws as well as dependent sense with interviews and such). One cannot easily do well as a journalist if he is excluded from the source of his news. Murdoch was hurt badly when Obama excluded fox news. He had to make quite a few concessions to be included again. Sure, a true journalist who does investigation may be able to serve people interested in more than speeches and sound bites, but then how will they find an entire business that can support this sort of model of journalistic integrity? So in short, moderators have no incentive to rock the boat. They are drawn from a pool of people dependent upon the favors of our rulers. That is why it is the fringe elements of journalism that carry the standard of truth. It may share the space with many from different contradictory biases and such, but one bias that is not present is direct dependency on politicians for ones daily bread. But they are never permitted to participate with politicians in these 'debates'.
Romney has never been in a position that could influence the warrantless searches or the laws forbidding the lawsuits. He has never been a senator or congressman and lost his last attempt to run for president.
He did run for senator against Ted Kennedy back in 94 or so, but lost that. He's basically been just a governor and politician who tried to get a job at a federal level.
Romney can probably weasel out of culpability if he wanted to. However, I doubt either candidate wants to because they most likely see nothing wrong with it. Obama threw some bones when trying to get elected last time, but that was just campaign posturing to get people to vote for him though.
Because he exists.. we are all culpable when we give them this authority by reelecting them. The politician is a mere reflection.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Kind of like most actual points of governing.
You would? I think it's pretty obvious how it would go. If the moderator asked about it, Obama or Romney would make the same argument the administration made already. And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights. If pressed further, feet held to the fire as it were, they would repeat the argument the administration already made and the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights. The media and voters would wonder what the stick up the moderator's butt was. The line "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't need to hide" would be brought up in some form or another, and the two would pat themselves on the back for wisely not caring about wiretapping when there are terrorists out there.
The voters swallowed the fear mongering from politicians, pundits, and people selling books and articles on how the world is out to get you. They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security. Both parties are guilty, but they're giving the customers what they want. There's not a politician alive of any party who could get through to the voters and get them to stop sacrificing their rights in exchange for security. Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
Right. Even if someone brought it up, they don't have to wiggle out because they are both in agreement. While there are some differences (and not minor ones) between those two, the list of agreements is even longer
If we are lucky we might hear debate on the disagreements. Why debate stuff they agree on? Without a 3rd (or a 4th) party candidate that can actually call them on that?
Sounds good.
I'd extend it further to posit that the purpose of democracy isn't really to give its citizens anything more than an illusion that they have any impact on how things are run. Democracy is merely safeguard to prevent the established institution from being overthrown in a bloody revolution in case one of the leaders fucks up royally. Our leaders have become brilliant at straddling the line, though.
I'm not sure why the candidates should be talking about people getting arrested in protests. I'm not aware of the federal government arresting one person for protesting. State and local government might have but the candidates aren't running for state or local government.
Moderators need to be moderate and impartial by default. The debates are there to show the differences in candidates not to show one as better or worse then the other. IF a moderator seems to be favoring one candidate over the other, it can actually cause a backlash that would cause the defeat of one of them. It can also cause a reluctance of candidates participating in them. The candidates are the ones who are supposed to bring these things up- not the moderators. What you are asking for is more akin to journalist asking questions at press briefings and speeches.
If a moderator is rocking the boat, they are doing something completely wrong. Part of the reason you might dislike the way the debates are might be because you have a different concept of what purpose they serve then what you seem to think they should be. You should never be able to tell what ideas or ideology a moderator holds over politics in general or any particular subject by questions asked in a debate.
What the hell is wrong with the Judiciary? Why not require a warrant like any other search, because it's digital? If it REALLY is a matter of national security a judge would sign a warrant in a second. This whole thing is just horse shit so the NSA can spend billions of tax dollars spying on its OWN citizens because they have been grasping at straws in the war against terror, which frankly has accomplished jack shit in my opinion.
Imagine if we took 100% of the NSA dollars and spent it on teachers and education, science programs, social programs like healthcare, college tuition forgiveness and urban development..... ahh to dream, guess I won't be using ATT anytime soon.
Yeah if only we had a moderator with balls, it's not the entire system that's rotten.
Not to defend any of this crap, but how is Romeny culpable at all?
Because if Romeny weren't held culpable here, between those two the GP poster would have to blame Obama and ONLY Obama.
Can't do THAT to the Lightworker!
(You think I'm kidding?)
It won't. The only election issues in the US are "abortion, gays in the military, and gay marriage". As of the past 30 years. Anything else is quickly shouted down and buried under a flurry of the aforementioned, with the odd stem cell thrown in.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Good post let me add some points.
The Senate before the 17th amendment represented the state governments in Washington DC. This was important because it pit one group of greedy power hungry bastards against another. The 17th amendment was passed because they said the way senators were elected was corrupt. Of course it was. That was the purpose. Now nobody represents the state governments in DC and it shows.
Second.
The final check is a jury trial and nullification. A jury can rule on not only the guilt or innocence but on the law itself. In the jury room you can decide a law is unconstitutional and declare the defendant innocent. This is why whenever these bullies punish or detain people without trial it is such a dangerous path to go down.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
What could possibly go wrong?
Romney has never been in a position that could influence the warrantless searches or the laws forbidding the lawsuits. He has never been a senator or congressman and lost his last attempt to run for president.
He did run for senator against Ted Kennedy back in 94 or so, but lost that. He's basically been just a governor and politician who tried to get a job at a federal level.
And he ran the SLC Olympics.
And a successful business or two.
Better than a 1/2 term Senator who's never actually been accountable for anything before in his entire life...
But don't worry, lot's of people fail at their first real job and get fired from it.
Romney can probably weasel out of culpability if he wanted to. However, I doubt either candidate wants to because they most likely see nothing wrong with it. Obama threw some bones when trying to get elected last time, but that was just campaign posturing to get people to vote for him though.
Understatement of the millennium.
"Threw some bones"!?!?!?
How about waved the false flag of "Hopenchange" like a matador enticing a herd of lobotomized bulls? (And cows are STOOOOPID to begin with!)
Gitmo closed yet?
Hell, "illegal" and "warrantless" wiretaps ended yet? (Ain't that apropos!)
Deficit cut yet?
Jobless rate lowered yet?
Where's that "middle class tax cut"?
When's Obama gonna "focus like a laser" on jobs?
Oh, and the funniest thing is, the Obama we saw in last week's debate WAS the REAL Obama. Remember Hillary cleaning his clock in the last debate of the 2008 Dem primary season? Hillary finally realized she might lose to Teh Won and took off the kid gloves and whipped his ass in the last Dem debate - but it was the last Dem debate because Teh Petulant Won took his empty chair and went home and refused to debate any more.
And didn't Clint Eastwood win? See this week's New Yorker cover? Romney schooling an empty chair in a debate.
America (except the West Coast, Hawaii, and Northeast) will probably be eventually renamed to "Jesusland" if the far right has its way.
you can exercise your RIGHT to jury nullification.
but be aware that you risk 'angering the court' and getting one of those law talking guys to give you a bad court thingie.
contempt of court can be a deterrent. you have to lie to the court to even get past voire dire, and so there's that. and when you lie and say you won't follow your heart, but will, instead, dutifully be a sheep to the judge's view of the law - then you go and vote against his views, you are really risking contempt. lots of bad court thingies. ouch.
they know this. they silence us with these threats.
what are you going to do? take jail time, yourself, just to fight a bad law?
how many modern americans can or will do this?
note: having any negative spots on your legal history can be a show-stopper for many mid and higher end jobs. they also know this and use this threat against you.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'm writing in Neil deGrasse Tyson.
We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.
Nothing will change as long as we have fucktards voting like it's a high school homecoming king and queen election. This idea of voting for something great is wasting a vote is just nonsense that keeps us inline. If people aren't willing to accept that voting against the major parties is a version of revolution than nothing will happen until people have to start to choose between revolution and starvation.
The number one question I would like to ask politicians, political candidates and people more generally (including and especially both Obama and Romney) is this:
Do you believe that it is acceptable for the government of the United States of America and its agencies to violate the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of ordinary American Citizens in the name of the War on Terror?
This isn't railing against all data mining operations. This is railing against data mining operations that operate in direct opposition to the 4th amendment of the US constitution.
There are still a few people around who think the government ought to be limited by the constitution, and that the only legitimate way to change the constitution resides under the aegis of article V, and that the fiddling the government -- all three branches -- has been doing is by definition illegal.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Within a deliberating jury, you do not have to state a reason for your position. They can ask you; but you don't have to answer them. All you have to do is stick to your position; there's no risk of contempt of court, etc. The only risk is protracted deliberation.
Personally, I say: "Guilty", "Not Guilty" or "I'm still thinking about my position on this." Holding to the latter until everyone else is tired, then dropping my dissenting vote as late in the process as possible seems to work very well. Once dropped, "I"m listening", "I remain unconvinced" or "I remain convinced" is sufficient to hold your position.
The point is, if you never state why you vote as you do, you can't be held to any particular motivation. It's not difficult. Just hold your damn tongue.
One more case to show that relying on a branch of the federal government to limit the powers of the federal government is an exercise of futility.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Where are the mod points when I need them! I don't even bother watching political debates live because the debate questions tend to be a quick rehash of the things we hear on a daily basis. Can we get some real discussion on the issues please?
I just watch the debates live due to the drinking game aspect. I entirely agree that we won't get anything useful from them.
There is no constitutional right to privacy. SCOTUS doesn't need to take it because there is no relevant question of law involved.
By and large, information gained in a warrantless search can not be used in a court of law.
Government scrutiny is like the war on drugs. There is no stopping it. There is no winning. We could try to not fund it?
You don't hear Barack Obama without a teleprompter on a daily basis. And for good reason.
woah, be careful what you say. Michael Crawford is in jail for trying to warn people how easy it is to make bombs. Of course, it probably didn't help that he called 911 to tell them about it. Repeatedly. After they told him to stop wasting their time with his incoherent rambling.
We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.
Haha, have you seen Romney/Ryan interviews? They refuse to answer any specific questions because their plan is to cut taxes, increase military spending, keep all other spending (except PBS). Oh, and repeal the health care bill, keep just the popular parts (i.e. the ones that cost money), while tossing out unpopular parts.
I'm all for that, but you are talking about the United States of America, and gawd knows between attention deficit, reality television programming and the American diet for dumb and dumber talking heads, the chance of such debates are small, and the chance of them getting more than a dozen viewers who aren't CSPAN junkies on non-election years is small to vanishing.
Whoa, whoa whoa!!! slow down there buddy, you not only got the cart before the horse but are setting off the wrong way to the market.. I didn't say anything about qualifications, I said Romney has had no say or ability to vote for or against the warrantless wire taps or the immunity the telecoms received. The parent was incorrect in saying neither candidate could wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates. One of the candidates has yet to put his hands on it.
As for Obama and debates, everyone knows Obama is only good at giving other people's speeches. He can't do his charm and voter appeal if he doesn't have someone else write the words and a teleprompter to read them from. The jokes about the teleprompter being president and Obama being his personal aid is long and old. Obama did end up debating McCain though. I don't remember how it came out but McCain shouldn't have been the republican pick anyways. If it wasn't for needing to beat Obama, a lot of the republicans would have rather stayed home then go vote for McCain the "i"ll do what I want when I want and you won't know what you will get because I'll buck the system like a senile old man that's escaped a nursing home in his undies because I'm a maverick" candidate.
The only way to break the 2 party, one establishment system is to vote for somebody else, who represents an actual choice for real freedoms.
Gary Johnson is on every ballot.
sure, gary johnson represents freedom. freedom for people who have money to purchase freedom, that is. people without money get no freedom; they become the property of their employers and have no protection under the law as the law will belong to the wealthy. for those who look fondly upon 1830's america, or perhaps even more accurately dark ages europe, it would be great. for at least 99.9% of all people, it would be hell.
That's exactly right. In the other case, the suit is against NSA for doing the wiretapping. The city has simply decided to rule on whether or nit NSA can do the wiretap, rather than having people go after AT&T for following the law and cooperating with the men in black.
The "signal" the court is sending is "screw the phone company's cooperation, we're going to look at the NSA and why they're doing this in the first place."
Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss ...)
(lather, rinse, repeat
THIS is why we need to endorse a third party, and break the Republican/Democrat chain that has gone on since 1868... just after Abraham Lincoln.
Screw them BOTH, and vote Independent.
are these:
1. Governor, you understand that an action may be legal but not ethical. Why, then, given the difficult financial condition of Americans and America, did you take a tax deduction for your wife's horse? With nearly a quarter of a billion dollars net worth, why are you forcing me and my fellow Americans to pay for your wife's horse?
2. In your first debate with President Obama, you said in response to President Obama: "...the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is...". I couldn't agree more. Why then are most of your funds invested overseas? Why don't you invest your money in America?
Yeah, I've questions I'd like to ask Obama, too. But I'll start with the MittBot.
No... he remains just as culpable by his silence on the matter (albeit as the Governor of Mass.) when fellow party-member Bush instituted this particular little policy.
If all else fails and you want something more concrete, get someone to ask him point-blank. Any answer less than dissembling or qualifiers is to be interpreted as assent.
So far, the only politician of note to speak out against it directly is Ron Paul, who obviously has no hope of winning this (or any) presidential election.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It makes me furious how are few people decide to make cowards of us all!
In the end it will not matter which method a terrorist uses, because they have already won. We destroying American values because we are supposed to live in fear and paranoia, because that's what the bastards in charge tell us what to do. They say:be afraid, give your liberties up, believe blindly in our authority. Be a coward like George W, who ran from the White House with his tail between his legs during the 911 attacks. The US. Constitution means nothing now, so everyone who laid down their lives--did it for naught.
It is inevitable that terrorist attacks will happen. We will stop some, but not all. To paraphrase James Burke said, "There is nothing to stop some nutcase from setting this thing off in any major city in world." In the end, we will not stop desperate people from doing desperate things. There is not authority capable from protecting us from overwhelmingly bad political decisions.
It's heartbreaking to watch the fall of ones country.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
...who allowed Obaaaaama care to pass a national tax. But the supporters don't call it a tax.
I guess this isn't wiretapping just really strategic listening.
They scare me more then anyone else on this planet.
Even as I speak out like this, I'm afraid my emails, internet, phone will be monitored because I am speaking out.
I do NOT feel safe.
Be seeing you...
Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson authorized opening other people's private mail, without a warrant,l to gather intelligence to help win the Revolutionary War. I very much doubt he would object to government surveillance of people in direct contact with Al Qaida.
And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights.
Which civil rights would those be? The US Constitution doesn't grant any civil right to private communications with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the United States.
They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security.
The United States isn't a police state, not even close. You are indulging in hyperbole.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Or worse.
You do realize that was primarily a power struggle within one fascist political party, right?
It would be somewhere between utter fantasy and sheer lunacy to assert the United States is on the precipice of anything like that.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
You have the mistaken idea that most Americans oppose the government conducting surveillance on people in direct contact with terrorists organizations. That isn't the case - most Americas support it. Most Americans aren't trapped in the crank fringe view that spying on terrorists trying to blow up shopping malls with truck bombs is the same spying on domestic political opposition.
Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...
I can tell you how that would work out:
Moderator: Ah ha! So you admit you are going to take active steps to prevent terrorists from blowing up ordinary Americans by infringing on the rights of terrorists!
Candidate A: Yes! Of course!
Moderator: I guess we'll see how many Americas are OK with that!
Candidate A: I'm counting on it.
It is quite odd that some people think that any American president would be OK with terrorists attacking Americans at home and not do all in his power to prevent it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
How can a law be retro-active? A quick search found "In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. "
This is why you will never ever hear a thing about the thousands arrested by government across the country protesting the bankers and wall street and such
They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for violating the law. Usually stuff like blocking streets and camping in public spaces and whatnot.
yet not a single banker has been prosecuted even where outright fraud has been admitted and proven
Show me evidence of ONE banker who admitted breaking the law.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't need to hide
Also:
Think of the children
War on terror/drugs/pirates
For the greater good
Because you love (the US of) America
As a god-fearing citizen
So the FBI/NSA/CIA can save you
I am your leader and your superior
British House of Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_time this is the debate format we should have. For that matter, we should have a formal, weekly Question Time in the US House of Reps every week.
Yeah, right.
Its like you guys have swapped places with the Nazis.
[citation needed]
The decision infringes on the Constitutional right of an individual to be free of unwarranted search or Seizure. The law must apply to EVERYONE or they are not laws at all. The court decisions allows government agencies and corporations to transcend those laws, without the culpability required. Under the guise of protecting our country and way of life. It has made this decision, but the actions of that decision make that way of life, no longer a reality, and not worth protecting.
Any government entity or corporation going along with such ruling is making themselves a subject of interest, in the minds of those that wish to maintain the freedoms of which our country was founded upon.
The third and final branch of the US government has finally failed the people, and so we the people do not recognize the decision of the US Supreme court, and no longer recognize the authority of the same.
Plaintiffs argue that the law allows the executive branch to conduct 'warrantless and suspicionless domestic surveillance' without fear of review by the courts and at the sole discretion of the attorney general. TRAINED PROFESSIONALS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE IF THEY DO THEIR JOB WRONG! AFTER ALL, WE ARE PAYING THEM PRETTY NICE SALARIES FOR A REASON The Obama administration has argued to keep the immunity law in place, saying it would imperil national security to end such cooperation between the intelligence agencies and telecom companies. ANYONE KNOW WHAT ROMNEY'S VIEW IS ON THIS??? The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate case later this month in which civil liberties' group are suing NSA officials for authorizing unconstitutional wiretapping." GO ACLU, NEED TO BITCH SLAP THE SUPREME COURT WHILE YOUR AT IT!
The line around here is that terrorism is a cover story.
Apparently the Department of Homeland Security is really just interested in your drug stash, porn stash, and copyright infringement.
I know; it doesn't make any sense to me either.
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
You have the mistaken idea that most Americans oppose the government conducting surveillance on people in direct contact with terrorists organizations. That isn't the case - most Americas support it. Most Americans aren't trapped in the crank fringe view that spying on terrorists trying to blow up shopping malls with truck bombs is the same spying on domestic political opposition.
Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...
I can tell you how that would work out:
Moderator: Ah ha! So you admit you are going to take active steps to prevent terrorists from blowing up ordinary Americans by infringing on the rights of terrorists!
Candidate A: Yes! Of course!
Moderator: I guess we'll see how many Americas are OK with that!
Candidate A: I'm counting on it.
It is quite odd that some people think that any American president would be OK with terrorists attacking Americans at home and not do all in his power to prevent it.
Making a lot of bad assumptions here. Here are the two inexcusable ones.
A) This monitoring is actually preventing "terrorists" from anything.
B) That they are only monitoring and infringing on the rights of "terrorists" and people in contact with "terrorists".
Terrorists is in quotes, because - depending on the agency or the process (No-Fly List, maybe? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List , or the even looser "Terrorist Watch List", both of which HAVE been used as political retaliation?) - the definition of it can get pretty worthless. Just admit it - you're completely uninterested in a critical examination of what they're actually doing with all that power you gave up, because if they ARE abusing it, that means you're wrong.
Who says the terrorists (collectively) didn't want this kind of shit to happen?
Keep feeding (and funding) their desire to see the U.S. behave like the oppressive countries they live in. Keep it up. Go on.
And Obama didn't avoid specifics?
They could make the first week less specific for those who are only mildly interested and the last few weeks specific for those that want to be informed. They wouldn't do it on non-election years just a couple of months before voting.
Greenwald just had a nice comment about that bipartisan sophistry.
It's not and never has been about tapping Al Queda, but you knew that already. It's about tapping people the government doesn't even bother to claim are up to no good, since FISA laws already allowed for secret, retroactive warrants.
I'd love to see Ron Paul be elected president the, suddenly all the supremes die of some illness or whatever .. and then Ron Paul elect all the new supremes, all being 20 something far left liberals that still beleive in the death penalty for those deserving while, at the same time, believing corporate greed is ruining our great country and that overstuffed governments are absolutely wrong. I think that with Ron Paul as president and a whole new re-elected supereme court heavy on the realistic good side of things that'll last for another fourty plus years would be an absolute amazing thing for us all.
Anyone know how to make all this happen? Anyone?