That seems unlikely since there are likely to be more accidents as people cope with the darkness, increased use of fire from candles and matches, difficulties in reading prescriptions, lack of streetlights, possible problems with traffic signals, etc. Although I'm skeptical it is a somewhat interesting question. Let me know what you find out.
Yes, and the people who count the votes tend to be locals that can see their totals with the states. The Federal government has very little to do with elections, and the NSA nothing at all.
Let's explore that idea a bit. Pretty much all that I've done is provide excerpts and links from major newspapers or sources noting those stories, about news items with a common theme. Are you suggesting that those news items didn't happen? Or could you expand upon your suggestion? What is it about those news items that you think would suggest that anyone is a paranoid freak that is creating a society that promotes violent incidents? Is there some reason that you think the people in those stories that are either engaging in violence or preparing for violence shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? Do you think the reporters are engaged in such advocacy as you suggest? Or is it only me? I'm interested in hearing more about your idea. You don't suppose it's possible that the problem is actually that you have a really silly idea there, do you?
I think I can help you with a simple heuristic. If major news outlets such as the New York Time, the Telegraph, Human Events, or others are being quoted for news stories with a common theme of some sort, and it seems absurd to you, that should serve as an indicator to you that your judgment may be failing you and it would be best for you to refrain from comment if you want to avoid looking like an idiot. If you do choose to comment it is your good fortune that there is no shortage of idiots with mod points that are likely to mod you up, you might even get a +5 for utter nonsense. I know I've seen it before.
good then they achieved there goal lets remove more civil liberties while your still scared for something absurdly unlikely to actually happen
The California legislature needs no excuse to remove people's rights, it is assumed once it is in session. Guess who owns the government, lock, stock, and barrel?
Besides that, the attack already did happen. It isn't theoretical. The questions are, who did it, why, will there be more, and will future attacks be bigger?
Of course, given the NSA can dictate terms to the President, Congress and Federal judges, the coup might have already happened. Would you notice if it had? Would you care?
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence on that one since it is not a "given."
People would notice when the next elections weren't held, or the person winning the vote didn't take office. Since elections are locally run in the US somebody would notice if the vote tallies weren't reported right.
Of course nobody expects triggering a cascading power failure. I seem to recall California has experienced rolling blackouts in the last 10 years or so.
All told, 50 million people lost power for up to two days in the biggest blackout in North American history. The event contributed to at least 11 deaths and cost an estimated $6 billion.
The most alarming report was in October 1982, of five men emerging from the water in wetsuits over olive drab uniforms. Spetsnaz, the elite Soviet Special Forces charged with behind-the-lines reconnaissance and sabotage, often wear olive drab.
The evidence of covert Soviet landings on St. Lawrence is impressive but still circumstantial....
Spokesmen for the Defense Intelligence Agency deny that any Russians have penetrated our perimeter, but Abner Gologoren, the local coroner and longtime magistrate of Savoonga, told me of a Russian found dead inside the old Air Force listening post at Northeast Cape around 1979. ''The military took charge of the body,'' the magistrate said. Alaska State Trooper A.J. Charlton believes that the Russian was somehow separated from his unit ''and hid out as long as he could, hoping they'd come back for him.''
Why Spetsnaz or other Soviet special forces would want to penetrate the island is another matter. A senior military intelligence source in Washington offered a plausible motive: ''It's like the old American Indian tradition of 'counting coup.' For a young Indian brave to be accepted as a man, he has to get close enough to his opponent, either in battle or in one-on-one combat, to touch him, and then to survive. Evidence, whether it be a wound or a scalp, that you were able to go in there and come back was having 'counted coup.' That's what the Soviet commandos are doing on St. Lawrence. It's a perfect place to do it.''
My source explained the military logic. ''In peacetime, all such organizations seek training opportunities for their special units that approximate the real risks and hazards of wartime,'' he said. ''Going in covertly in ones and twos is the best possible training. The coastline is undefended and indefensible. Practicing out on St. Lawrence is not like flying a U-2 over the Soviet Union and getting shot down. There's risk, but not that dire risk.''
His assessment of what the Russians are up to was the most candid and sensible that I'd heard. Back in Nome, though, yet another theory was propounded to me one night at the Board of Trade - a saloon. Spetsnaz were indeed making covert landings, it went, but part of their mission was to poach ivory artifacts.
Sometimes they aren't all foreign, and they are just waiting for the sign.
“We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”
So said the Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani, leader of the jihad terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra. And the way that he and his organization are “dealing with evil at its roots” is to set up jihad terror training camps all over the United States — often under the noses of government and law enforcement officials who are either indifferent or too hamstrung by political correctness to do anything about it.
Sheikh Gilani is no shrinking violet, and Jamaat ul-Fuqra is a force to be reckoned with both in the United States and elsewhere. Journalist Daniel Pearl was on his way to interview Gilani when he was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002. The following year, a member of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Iyman Faris, pled guilty to plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security included the group among “predicted possi
History namely the Boston bombing also show that the government surveillance is utterly useless when applied to terrorism even when it is given plenty of warning by other nations. So if said surveillance is ineffectual against terrorism why is it still need.
A single failure by government invalidates an entire approach? Should we close the Post Office for missed deliveries? If your passport is delivered late to you, shutter the State Department? NASA blew up some rockets as part of the space program, should they have stopped on the first failure? The Union Army lost a lot of battles at the start of the Civil War, should the US have just let the Southern states go, as well as let them keep their "peculiar institution" of slavery?
what is it useful for? creating a police state.
Do you have any evidence that political oppression is occurring due to the NSA's actions? By what police agency? What offenses are people being changed with? How long are they going to jail for? Or is that made up?
those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
Your boldface was defective, I corrected it for you. Now I ask you, what essential liberties have been permanently given up?
No where in the constitution does it say that it is governments job to keep me safe, it is my job to keep me safe
You're quite mistaken there. The Constitution explicitly authorizes the creation, funding, organization, and regulation of the army and navy by Congress. It appoints the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia when called into Federal service. It grants the government the power to fight wars and put down insurrections. It even grants the government the power to suspend Habeas Corpus when necessary due to invasion or insurrection.
You might be a mighty warrior indeed, but even a platoon of Marines has you beat every which way. Or are you claiming that is all unnecessary?
They were explicitly told about the brothers, and they decided to not follow up on the investigation.
They dropped the ball, period.
They're not interested in terrorism. They're interested in political machinations.
Please provide evidence that the NSA and FBI are involved in that.
The Feds including the IRS are focusing all attention on guiding elections now.
The IRS needs to be roasted by Congress and reformed. There is no evidence that the FBI and NSA joined in that I know of. I'd love to see it if you know of any.
Freedom is more important than safety. Remember how this is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? No? Then perhaps you're too trusting of the government.
Or maybe you simply ignore parts of the Constitution that aren't your favorite. If you bother to read the constitution, you see entire sections devoted to the question of providing for the security of the United States. If fact you could make the very reasonable argument that freedom of the individual citizens was assumed and it was security, national defense, that had to be explicitly provided for. Many of the specific guarantees regarding various freedoms are not in the text of the main document itself, but are "add ons" in amendments. The main text of the document, the Constitution, is concerned with explicitly describing authority related to providing national defense and powers of the Federal government.
The simple fact is that various aspects of security and freedom are tied together. A nation that is conquered by a foreign invader will not be free. A nation that has a breakaway region faces enormous questions as to its fate. If lawlessness in your city is such that you have reasonable fear for your life or limb by leaving the building where you live, what true freedom do you have? If pirates are taking your citizens as slaves, you are failing to protect their freedom, and yet it isn't clear you would be troubled by that since ".... we have to take some risks. That's what happens when you're free." Would you protect the freedoms of American citizens, either protecting or freeing them from pirates? I have no confidence in that.
On the whole I find your argument "freedom is more important than safety" to be ill considered, at best, since most people I see making that claim here tend to resolve it towards the direction of "therefore we cannot tolerate steps taken to provide for security, at all," even if not explicitly stated.
Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." I think if we look closely at the arguments of those who claim we must only have freedom, and any steps towards security are too many, that they are in effect saying, "Hang the lot of you, but stay away from me." If there was a guarantee that they would be a "canary in the coal mine," the first to be hung to give the rest ample warning, it might be worth considering. But there is no such guarantee, so we must provide for both.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;....
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If your Senator is Chuck Schumer then you have my condolences.
Most politicians do pay at least some attention to the public's sentiment on various issues. When they get volumes of communications about a subject they are likely to take that into account, including which way the communications lean. There are no guarantees that will change anything. Some questions are a matter of party discipline and a particular vote is demanded. In other cases they are free to vote their conscience, and in those cases they may very well take the views of constituents into account, as well as those of the usual insiders.
Some of them actually do read at least some of the letters, or if the staff finds one with interesting views. That is why it pays to write, and not just use a form letter. From time to time a Senator or Congressman will credit a constituent with being the motivating force behind a particular piece of legislation, or a vote.
One other thing to keep in mind is that due to their position they may be aware of things that their constitutes aren't, and may use that as a basis for their vote. That is certainly going to be true to at least some extent for national security matters in which they receive classified briefings that they can't discuss. Unfortunately I doubt that they necessarily get as much information as desirable, but on the other hand some of them can't be trusted to keep a secret. I believe that Patrick Leahy has previously lost committee assignments due to that sort of problem.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter how many billionaires you have as friends, the voters in a district are the ones that decide the election. If they are mad at you, you aren't going to win. Given Schumer and his district I wouldn't count on him losing before retirement unless there is huge blowback from something. Obamacare might do it, but probably not.
Nobody believes that since the Republican-majority Supreme Court handed the election over to the Republican candidate in Bush vs. Gore.
So that's what really did it for you? That's when you started doubting the system, when the Supreme Court upheld the legal principle that you can't keep changing the rules of an election after the voting until the other guy wins?
Judges can be removed by Congress, that's it. Private citizens don't "fire" judges, or even try, unless they want to go to jail for threatening an officer of the court. If you don't like the way things turned out then write your Congressmen. That is the way things work.
The status of the law isn't all that different than it was 30 days ago. The only "win," defined as a finding that the NSA's activities may not be legal, is a preliminary injunction for two people, and the case has yet to be decided. That isn't a win yet. It is also unlikely that complainants in the suit winning the injunction will ultimately prevail upon appeal. You can read some informed legal commentary from an actual law professor here:
Even a casual observer can figure out that SCOTUS has been ignoring the Constitution.
Well then, it's a good thing we have "casual observers" to tell us what is and isn't constitutional. Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated. Any opinion is as good as any other.
If you paid attention during the Cold War you know that the problem was active oppression engaged in by the communist governments, not just the listening. Vote the wrong way - go to jail. Tell a joke about the party leader - go to jail for 10 years. Want to leave the country - go to jail.
Write your Congressman and Senators, don't just update their Wiki page.
Given the wealth of information on the NSA programs, it is possible to reverse engineer each NSA program and then apply each to the communications of the White House, President and Vice President to do the them what they intend to do do to us before they have a chance to "do us."
Instead of engaging in revenge fantasies it would be a more productive use of your time to write your Congressional representatives.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems unlikely since there are likely to be more accidents as people cope with the darkness, increased use of fire from candles and matches, difficulties in reading prescriptions, lack of streetlights, possible problems with traffic signals, etc. Although I'm skeptical it is a somewhat interesting question. Let me know what you find out.
Yes, and the people who count the votes tend to be locals that can see their totals with the states. The Federal government has very little to do with elections, and the NSA nothing at all.
Let's explore that idea a bit. Pretty much all that I've done is provide excerpts and links from major newspapers or sources noting those stories, about news items with a common theme. Are you suggesting that those news items didn't happen? Or could you expand upon your suggestion? What is it about those news items that you think would suggest that anyone is a paranoid freak that is creating a society that promotes violent incidents? Is there some reason that you think the people in those stories that are either engaging in violence or preparing for violence shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? Do you think the reporters are engaged in such advocacy as you suggest? Or is it only me? I'm interested in hearing more about your idea. You don't suppose it's possible that the problem is actually that you have a really silly idea there, do you?
I think I can help you with a simple heuristic. If major news outlets such as the New York Time, the Telegraph, Human Events, or others are being quoted for news stories with a common theme of some sort, and it seems absurd to you, that should serve as an indicator to you that your judgment may be failing you and it would be best for you to refrain from comment if you want to avoid looking like an idiot. If you do choose to comment it is your good fortune that there is no shortage of idiots with mod points that are likely to mod you up, you might even get a +5 for utter nonsense. I know I've seen it before.
good then they achieved there goal lets remove more civil liberties while your still scared for something absurdly unlikely to actually happen
The California legislature needs no excuse to remove people's rights, it is assumed once it is in session. Guess who owns the government, lock, stock, and barrel?
Besides that, the attack already did happen. It isn't theoretical. The questions are, who did it, why, will there be more, and will future attacks be bigger?
People actually still use Facebook and Twitter? Facebook's problems are well know, and Twitter is too wordy.
#sittingonporch
#sippinglemonade
Of course, given the NSA can dictate terms to the President, Congress and Federal judges, the coup might have already happened. Would you notice if it had? Would you care?
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence on that one since it is not a "given."
People would notice when the next elections weren't held, or the person winning the vote didn't take office. Since elections are locally run in the US somebody would notice if the vote tallies weren't reported right.
Of course nobody expects triggering a cascading power failure. I seem to recall California has experienced rolling blackouts in the last 10 years or so.
The 2003 Northeast Blackout--Five Years Later
All told, 50 million people lost power for up to two days in the biggest blackout in North American history. The event contributed to at least 11 deaths and cost an estimated $6 billion.
How often do you encounter a platoon of enemy soldiers in the middle of America?
What's a platoon? Normally about 20-40 or so?
It happens.
Normally it is less than a platoon.
Lifting the Ice Curtain - October 23, 1988
The most alarming report was in October 1982, of five men emerging from the water in wetsuits over olive drab uniforms. Spetsnaz, the elite Soviet Special Forces charged with behind-the-lines reconnaissance and sabotage, often wear olive drab.
The evidence of covert Soviet landings on St. Lawrence is impressive but still circumstantial ....
Spokesmen for the Defense Intelligence Agency deny that any Russians have penetrated our perimeter, but Abner Gologoren, the local coroner and longtime magistrate of Savoonga, told me of a Russian found dead inside the old Air Force listening post at Northeast Cape around 1979. ''The military took charge of the body,'' the magistrate said. Alaska State Trooper A.J. Charlton believes that the Russian was somehow separated from his unit ''and hid out as long as he could, hoping they'd come back for him.''
Why Spetsnaz or other Soviet special forces would want to penetrate the island is another matter. A senior military intelligence source in Washington offered a plausible motive: ''It's like the old American Indian tradition of 'counting coup.' For a young Indian brave to be accepted as a man, he has to get close enough to his opponent, either in battle or in one-on-one combat, to touch him, and then to survive. Evidence, whether it be a wound or a scalp, that you were able to go in there and come back was having 'counted coup.' That's what the Soviet commandos are doing on St. Lawrence. It's a perfect place to do it.''
My source explained the military logic. ''In peacetime, all such organizations seek training opportunities for their special units that approximate the real risks and hazards of wartime,'' he said. ''Going in covertly in ones and twos is the best possible training. The coastline is undefended and indefensible. Practicing out on St. Lawrence is not like flying a U-2 over the Soviet Union and getting shot down. There's risk, but not that dire risk.''
His assessment of what the Russians are up to was the most candid and sensible that I'd heard. Back in Nome, though, yet another theory was propounded to me one night at the Board of Trade - a saloon. Spetsnaz were indeed making covert landings, it went, but part of their mission was to poach ivory artifacts.
Sometimes they aren't all foreign, and they are just waiting for the sign.
Terror Training Camps On American Soil
“We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”
So said the Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani, leader of the jihad terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra. And the way that he and his organization are “dealing with evil at its roots” is to set up jihad terror training camps all over the United States — often under the noses of government and law enforcement officials who are either indifferent or too hamstrung by political correctness to do anything about it.
Sheikh Gilani is no shrinking violet, and Jamaat ul-Fuqra is a force to be reckoned with both in the United States and elsewhere. Journalist Daniel Pearl was on his way to interview Gilani when he was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002. The following year, a member of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Iyman Faris, pled guilty to plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security included the group among “predicted possi
History namely the Boston bombing also show that the government surveillance is utterly useless when applied to terrorism even when it is given plenty of warning by other nations. So if said surveillance is ineffectual against terrorism why is it still need.
A single failure by government invalidates an entire approach? Should we close the Post Office for missed deliveries? If your passport is delivered late to you, shutter the State Department? NASA blew up some rockets as part of the space program, should they have stopped on the first failure? The Union Army lost a lot of battles at the start of the Civil War, should the US have just let the Southern states go, as well as let them keep their "peculiar institution" of slavery?
what is it useful for? creating a police state.
Do you have any evidence that political oppression is occurring due to the NSA's actions? By what police agency? What offenses are people being changed with? How long are they going to jail for? Or is that made up?
those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
Your boldface was defective, I corrected it for you. Now I ask you, what essential liberties have been permanently given up?
No where in the constitution does it say that it is governments job to keep me safe, it is my job to keep me safe
You're quite mistaken there. The Constitution explicitly authorizes the creation, funding, organization, and regulation of the army and navy by Congress. It appoints the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia when called into Federal service. It grants the government the power to fight wars and put down insurrections. It even grants the government the power to suspend Habeas Corpus when necessary due to invasion or insurrection.
You might be a mighty warrior indeed, but even a platoon of Marines has you beat every which way. Or are you claiming that is all unnecessary?
They were explicitly told about the brothers, and they decided to not follow up on the investigation.
They dropped the ball, period.
They're not interested in terrorism. They're interested in political machinations.
Please provide evidence that the NSA and FBI are involved in that.
The Feds including the IRS are focusing all attention on guiding elections now.
The IRS needs to be roasted by Congress and reformed. There is no evidence that the FBI and NSA joined in that I know of. I'd love to see it if you know of any.
The IRS Scandal, Day 232
Move to North Korea already.
You apparently have no useful views on the subject of the Constitution or personal liberty. Save your breath and typing.
Freedom is more important than safety. Remember how this is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? No? Then perhaps you're too trusting of the government.
Or maybe you simply ignore parts of the Constitution that aren't your favorite. If you bother to read the constitution, you see entire sections devoted to the question of providing for the security of the United States. If fact you could make the very reasonable argument that freedom of the individual citizens was assumed and it was security, national defense, that had to be explicitly provided for. Many of the specific guarantees regarding various freedoms are not in the text of the main document itself, but are "add ons" in amendments. The main text of the document, the Constitution, is concerned with explicitly describing authority related to providing national defense and powers of the Federal government.
The simple fact is that various aspects of security and freedom are tied together. A nation that is conquered by a foreign invader will not be free. A nation that has a breakaway region faces enormous questions as to its fate. If lawlessness in your city is such that you have reasonable fear for your life or limb by leaving the building where you live, what true freedom do you have? If pirates are taking your citizens as slaves, you are failing to protect their freedom, and yet it isn't clear you would be troubled by that since ".... we have to take some risks. That's what happens when you're free." Would you protect the freedoms of American citizens, either protecting or freeing them from pirates? I have no confidence in that.
On the whole I find your argument "freedom is more important than safety" to be ill considered, at best, since most people I see making that claim here tend to resolve it towards the direction of "therefore we cannot tolerate steps taken to provide for security, at all," even if not explicitly stated.
Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." I think if we look closely at the arguments of those who claim we must only have freedom, and any steps towards security are too many, that they are in effect saying, "Hang the lot of you, but stay away from me." If there was a guarantee that they would be a "canary in the coal mine," the first to be hung to give the rest ample warning, it might be worth considering. But there is no such guarantee, so we must provide for both.
The Constitution of the United States
Article. I.
Section. 8.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ....
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Pri
If your Senator is Chuck Schumer then you have my condolences.
Most politicians do pay at least some attention to the public's sentiment on various issues. When they get volumes of communications about a subject they are likely to take that into account, including which way the communications lean. There are no guarantees that will change anything. Some questions are a matter of party discipline and a particular vote is demanded. In other cases they are free to vote their conscience, and in those cases they may very well take the views of constituents into account, as well as those of the usual insiders.
Some of them actually do read at least some of the letters, or if the staff finds one with interesting views. That is why it pays to write, and not just use a form letter. From time to time a Senator or Congressman will credit a constituent with being the motivating force behind a particular piece of legislation, or a vote.
One other thing to keep in mind is that due to their position they may be aware of things that their constitutes aren't, and may use that as a basis for their vote. That is certainly going to be true to at least some extent for national security matters in which they receive classified briefings that they can't discuss. Unfortunately I doubt that they necessarily get as much information as desirable, but on the other hand some of them can't be trusted to keep a secret. I believe that Patrick Leahy has previously lost committee assignments due to that sort of problem.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter how many billionaires you have as friends, the voters in a district are the ones that decide the election. If they are mad at you, you aren't going to win. Given Schumer and his district I wouldn't count on him losing before retirement unless there is huge blowback from something. Obamacare might do it, but probably not.
True, however who is to say that being a judge these days isn't like being a politician, corporate owned before being allowed on the ballot.
Federal judge isn't an elected position. You've got that all wrong.
goberment
That word and "sheeple" are usually argument "winners" all by themselves.
With the knee jerk actions in mind it is conceivable that they are moving towards depopulation, or population control.
No, "Infowars" hysteria aside.
Nobody believes that since the Republican-majority Supreme Court handed the election over to the Republican candidate in Bush vs. Gore.
So that's what really did it for you? That's when you started doubting the system, when the Supreme Court upheld the legal principle that you can't keep changing the rules of an election after the voting until the other guy wins?
Scalia on Bush v Gore: ‘Get Over It’
Judges can be removed by Congress, that's it. Private citizens don't "fire" judges, or even try, unless they want to go to jail for threatening an officer of the court. If you don't like the way things turned out then write your Congressmen. That is the way things work.
No, not even close. Great troll though.
The status of the law isn't all that different than it was 30 days ago. The only "win," defined as a finding that the NSA's activities may not be legal, is a preliminary injunction for two people, and the case has yet to be decided. That isn't a win yet. It is also unlikely that complainants in the suit winning the injunction will ultimately prevail upon appeal. You can read some informed legal commentary from an actual law professor here:
Another Problem With Judge Leon’s NSA Opinion: Absolute vs. Relative Measurements and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness
Can the DC Circuit Use the Mosaic Theory to Invalidate the NSA Telephony Metadata Program?
This same law professor comments on the last case here:
Judge Pauley of the SDNY Upholds NSA Section 215 Program
The bottom line is nothing is really different.
Even a casual observer can figure out that SCOTUS has been ignoring the Constitution.
Well then, it's a good thing we have "casual observers" to tell us what is and isn't constitutional. Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated. Any opinion is as good as any other.
If you paid attention during the Cold War you know that the problem was active oppression engaged in by the communist governments, not just the listening. Vote the wrong way - go to jail. Tell a joke about the party leader - go to jail for 10 years. Want to leave the country - go to jail.
Write your Congressman and Senators, don't just update their Wiki page.
And the internet has just jumped the shark.
Given the wealth of information on the NSA programs, it is possible to reverse engineer each NSA program and then apply each to the communications of the White House, President and Vice President to do the them what they intend to do do to us before they have a chance to "do us."
Instead of engaging in revenge fantasies it would be a more productive use of your time to write your Congressional representatives.
Cheesy humor to be sure.
You seem to think he's in a pickle of some sort.