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?
... 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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
maybe make it a Tea Party issues
Their handlers are salivating at the thought of getting those powers back.
For instance, the Texas Republican Party Platform document stated that they should make bill of rights cases un-appealable to the Supreme Court by using Congress's control over jurisdiction of courts to make violations of the Bill of Rights outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. (All that bullshit about "critical thinking skills" or whatever was a huge fucking snowjob and the liberals bought into it hook line and stinker.) Why? Because they expect that they'll be in power and won't have to worry about minority liberals taking away Second Amendment rights, and they'll be free to infringe on any rights they feel like.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
"Remedies to Activist Judiciary", starting around the bottom of the page numbered "P-4".
Led by a nationally relevant Texas Republican.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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