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)
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.