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?
Yes!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You can't prove that the illegal activity affect you, so it's not illegal?
What the actual fuck?
1. Can't prove that you were affected because you can't get the records.
2. Can't get the records because they're either "classified" or they just don't answer FOIA requests
3. Can't get them declassified or revealed because you need to go to court
4. Can't go to court because you don't have evidence you were affected.
5. GOTO 1
Is the problem merely him not being able to prove he has standing? Could be simply get them to admit he does with a FOIA or other action? The NSA would have a conflict of interest giving material to prove that they did or didn't do it. Is there a third party that can sort this out in their place? NIST? Hell, give it to NASA to give them some more money. They need it, and their sysadmins might be bored.
...that Obama can stop this with a simple phone call. And he can make sure it doesn't happen again with a stroke of his E.O. Pen.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
Isn't the DC Court of Appeals sort of the equivalent of a State Supreme Court, with no jurisdiction outside DC? It get s a little confusing since it's still a federal court due to the nature of the District of Columbia, but I don't think this has any bearing on the 2nd Circuit ruling from a few months ago.
It's unlikely it ever ends up before SCOTUS since it was swept under the rug legislatively, but let's not misunderstand this as a sweeping judicial approval of the program.
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.
.
Sounds like good, self-serving logic for the NSA.
SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?
Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
Well, it's not 'just' shrugged off -- this is the great US legal system. If a Federal appeals court judge should shrug, it is because s/he shrugs with the shoulders of giants.
Since you couldn't have spoke truer, I'll shoot for a little bit shorter: BOUGHT AND SOLD.
blog
... the industries effected and the public at large assumed nothing less would happen. The Feds generally have an attitude that if they CAN do a thing technically that they can do it legally.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When a technicality of law provides an otherwise guilty individual to walk, that really is justice. Because the very principles of justice are about keeping state power in check.
When the technicalities of law are used to prevent citizens from challenging state power, that is an absolute perversion of the spirit of the principle. That is NOT justice.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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 this person doesn't understand the process of appeals, and why it is important.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Another standing based evasion of the 4th amendment. As long has you have to prove a negative you have personally been the victim of a clandestine program or any government program for that matter the Constitution might as well be toilette paper.
All they have to do is classify the records and its essentially game over.
What we need to do is push for legislation that lowers the bar for legal standing in cases against the government. It should be very low. Once the program is proven to exist it should be open to challenge on the complain it violates any other laws or violates anyone's Constitutional rights. The fact that its supposed to be a government by the people and for the people, means that we the people should have automatic standing anytime the government is violated laws or the Constitution we the people enacted. The grounds should be a failure to lawfully govern, the harm being undermining societies faith in law.
This is the only way we are going make any headway.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Only the fools think there is "freedom" here in the USA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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/...
Whistleblower says NSA was wiretapping Obama since before he was a senator, so they pretty much have everything on him, or at least enough to let them do whatever the fsck they want.
Sure it's illegal for the NSA to use it to force the judge to rule that way, but that has never stopped them in the past.
Subvert, destroy, confuse. Supposed to be the enemy, but used against the USA more than our real enemies.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'd step away from that partisan comment. If the President was a Republican, then liberals would be complaining.
The problem isn't with liberals going after conservatives or vice versa. The problem is that there exists a power which allows whoever is in charge to go after those they don't like. If the Republicans are in power, they'd use it as much as the Obama Administration does.
So we've exhausted the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box. Only one box is left.
Given the fairly statist makeup of the supreme court I expect if this gets to them to have a similar ruling logic be damned. I still haven't' figured out logic behind the ACA ruling that first had to find that the penalty/tax was a penalty not a tax, and then in the same ruling, a mere few minutes later, find that it was instead a tax. That sort of incoherent ruling in my book means it is a bad ruling. I do understand the Roberts was the one who ruled differently on each part but he also wrote the majority opinion and yet doesn't seem to have the mental abilities to make a logical well reasoned argument.
Time to offend someone
capable of repetition yet evading review is the term here.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
international citizens
International citizens have rights in US courts?
But the President IS a Republican. Obama is politically identical to Bush.
Ah, that explains the good relations between him and the Republicans in Congress.