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."
Not really. Denying a petition doesn't mean the SCOTUS agrees with the lower decision just that the Court won't hear the case for whatever reason. It doesn't have to say why. Here, likely, the Court thought the issue would be settled in the other case it did take and that the two cases weren't close enough to combine. Basically, decide the NSA case. If NSA can't authorize then AT&T can't comply. It's a waterfall decision so there is no reason to hear both.
Well Spoken! Also said by Cicero over 2000 years ago "Laws are silent in times of war".
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato
There is nothing new in this world.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.
How would that be a good sign?
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
With Romney, I KNOW he won't hold to that promise even if he makes it.
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
He never had the chance to..... signed into law by bush.
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/07/09
Two things should be pointed out: Obama voted for this bill, and all of the "nay" votes were democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
>. Coming from a parliamentary system I have seen grassroot parties grow from nothing to destroy the establishment.
The US government is not a parliamentary system where various parties can form coalitions and whatnot. There is no such thing as a "minority government" in the US legislature.
--
BMO
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