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.
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?
... 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.
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)
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!
No, it won't - I know, I spend a good portion of every day surrounded by that particular group of mental midgets, and lord know I've tried to convince them of such. See, those groups (ultra-right Tea Baggers, ultra-left Uber-Socialists) don't care what happens in the world, unless it's relayed to them by one of their self-appointed Minstries of Truth - in the case of RWNs, it's Newscorp and Rush Limbaugh; for the LWNs, you have Bill Maher and NBC.
The only way you'll get the nutjobs to actually listen to reason is to have their personal media messiah's express it in a way that convinces said nutjobs will accept reality; for example, call in to Limbaugh's program posing as a member of his audience base, and posit the idea in a way that makes Rush think he thought of it himself.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"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..
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.
Romney is even more authoritarian.
Unfortunately, in a two party system, you are bound to pick the lesser of two evils, and a vote for a third party is a vote for the incumbent.
In b4 shitstorm of people who don't know how the system is deliberately broken.
--
BMO
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.
First, a vote for 3rd party is not a vote for the incumbent.
Second, even along that line of thought, it is only a half vote for the one opposite who you would have voted for.
Third, it is not a wasted vote when voting against the ruining of the country.
A vote for Obama or Mitt is VERY VERY BAD for this country. Like 50 years from now people will be looking in their history books studying why people were so stupid.
Maher is a comedian. Kind of like Jon Stewart, except with less rigorous fact-checking. Their audiences know this.
Limbaugh is also a comedian. The difference is, neither he nor his audience know it.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal