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?
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
Apparently only the 'victim' has standing to make a case, not a mere witness.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...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.
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.
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
The problem is that since it is a secret gov't program, no one can actually prove they have standing. In other words, it is legally unassailable by design.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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
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.
So I guess it's open season for murder, then.
I recently learned that necrophilic acts are not illegal in Massachusetts. So if you murder someone there is no downside (legally) to molesting the corpse.
Not quite sure what to do with this information, but I thought it was interesting.