Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Overturns Ruling That NSA Metadata Collection Was Illegal
New submitter captnjohnny1618 writes: NPR is reporting that an appeals court has overturned the decision that found the NSA's bulk data collection to be illegal. "Judges for the District of Columbia court of appeals found that the man who brought the case, conservative lawyer Larry Klayman, could not prove that his particular cellphone records had been swept up in NSA dragnets." The article clarifies that due to the recent passage of new laws governing how metadata is collected, this is of less significance than it would have otherwise been: "If you remember, after a fierce battle, both houses of Congress voted in favor of a law that lets phone companies keep that database, but still allows the government to query it for specific data. The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia still decided to take on the case, because that new program doesn't begin until 180 days after the date that law was enacted (June 2, 2015.)" On top of that, the injunction from the earlier ruling never actually went into effect. Still, it seems like an important ruling to me: a government agency was willfully and directly violating the rights of the Americans (and international citizens as well) and now it's just going to get shrugged off?
Apparently only the 'victim' has standing to make a case, not a mere witness.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The appellate court explicitly did NOT "overturn" the district court's substantive finding that the program is unconstitutional. This ruling is procedural, and unrelated to the merits of the legal arguments about constitutionality of the NSA program. The court instead found that this particular plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the program in court. It's a very problematic ruling, raises a lot of issues, and in my opinion should be reversed - but it certainly does not overturn the lower court's finding that the program is unconstitutional as a matter of law.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
U.S. federal judges, you are fucking cowards with your bullshit deference to executive-branch "privilege". You let the administration use bullshit tactics to pervert justice, and you use that as an excuse to not protect citizens' fundamental, Constitutionally enumerated rights. You demand that citizens prove that which cannot be proven without committing a crime, but let the administration just bleat "executive privilege" or "state secrets" or "it's for the kids", and consider that doing your job.
Assholes.
They are not cowards. They are vile, complicit scumbags who want things to be this way.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Apparently only the 'victim' has standing to make a case, not a mere witness.
I think it has always been that way.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Weird isn't it? If I witness a crime and fail to report it, I can get in trouble. But this? WTF? I mean, if a witness has no standing, then his testimony should be worthless.
As a victim of the State, you must prove harm to have standing for redress court. However, the State has no obligation to prove ANY harm to ANYONE to have standing to prosecute YOU.
Seems fair.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Apparently only the 'victim' has standing to make a case, not a mere witness.
I think it has always been that way.
No, not always
In "American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency" (2007), the United States Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here's two more: papers please.
Congratulations, the US is well and truly on its way to a police state.
Now we're all fucked.
Freedom is slavery, bitches.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.