In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of the NSA
49 replies, posted
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0"]
[url="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/07/06/secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-nsa/A4r6W7HhEMIN2GFDKR6i7I/story.html"]Boston Globe[/url]
[img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1229435/thumbs/r-NSA-COURT-large570.jpg?6[/img]
[quote]WASHINGTON — In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage, and cyber attacks, officials say.
The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal the expanded role of a court that regularly assesses broad constitutional questions and establishes important precedents, almost always without public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.
The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago,[b] it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come[/b], the officials said.
In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the [b]“special needs” doctrine[/b] and carved out [b]an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures[/b], the officials said.
The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said.
That legal interpretation is significant, several outside legal experts said, because it uses a relatively narrow area of the law — used to justify airport screenings, for instance, or drunken-driving checkpoints —[b] and applies it much more broadly, in secret, to the wholesale collection of communications in pursuit of terrorism suspects. “It seems like a legal stretch,”[/b] William C. Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University, said in response to a description of the decision. “It’s another way of tilting the scales toward the government in its access to all this data.”[/quote]
Man, don't you just love our legal system?
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
Fuckin A. Someone really needs to fix the editor, it's happening so often now.
This is for everyone supporting the NSA because according to the government "it's within legal limits"
Of course it's within legal limits when they can just stretch the limits whenever they feel the need to
[quote="Boston Globe"]In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.[/quote]
Well I for one think this part especially is absolutely terrifying.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
Does that make them terrorists?
[quote] an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures,[/quote]
Way to go US government, you're making an exception for something that should [b]never[/b] have exceptions. Might as well make exceptions for the entire Constitution while you're at it
Okay seriously. [B]SPREAD THE FUCKING WORD.[/B] Point out to people that are completely apathetic that they are outright ignoring the constitution your country is built upon. I can't believe how many times I'm repeating myself.
No wait I was saying "Fucking protest" all the time. Eh that works too.
the justice system and government have been corrupt for a really long time, only now are the masses starting to realize this. Most don't give a fuck about "the people". It's all about the money these days.
I don't trust anyone in power, and never will.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;41350499]Okay seriously. [B]SPREAD THE FUCKING WORD.[/B] Point out to people that are completely apathetic that they are outright ignoring the constitution your country is built upon. I can't believe how many times I'm repeating myself.
No wait I was saying "Fucking protest" all the time. Eh that works too.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes rather than saying "I told you so, I told you so" it is more poignant to simply state
"I might have mentioned this"
this is absolute bullshit, who do these people think they are?
[QUOTE=Glitch360;41350424]Way to go US government, you're making an exception for something that should [b]never[/b] have exceptions. Might as well make exceptions for the entire Constitution while you're at it[/QUOTE]
Just like exceptions to free speech, eh?
This is in essence a puppet court deciding that when NSA/CIA what have you want to do something, they say "that's ok".
[QUOTE=Hamm0;41350583]this is absolute bullshit, who do these people think they are?[/QUOTE]
Untouchable
[QUOTE=scout1;41350601]Just like exceptions to free speech, eh?[/QUOTE]
we already had "reasonable" exception to the 4th amendment just like we had one for the first.
[QUOTE=scout1;41350601]Just like exceptions to free speech, eh?[/QUOTE]While this is probably a jab at Glitch, I personally don't think there should be any exceptions to freedom of speech. Even those "wull, if u yell fire in a theater ok wat then??" arguments I find fucking ridiculous. If you yell fire, and there isn't any, and somebody dies from it? Yeah, that should be [i]negligent manslaughter[/i] because you're an idiot and you got somebody killed. I was never a fan of limiting what people can do simply because it might be bad, that's got the same broken moral justification as Jim Crow laws.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;41350739]While this is probably a jab at Glitch, I personally don't think there should be any exceptions to freedom of speech. Even those "wull, if u yell fire in a theater ok wat then??" arguments I find fucking ridiculous. If you yell fire, and there isn't any, and somebody dies from it? Yeah, that should be [i]negligent manslaughter[/i] because you're an idiot and you got somebody killed. I was never a fan of limiting what people can do simply because it might be bad, that's got the same broken moral justification as Jim Crow laws.[/QUOTE]
You just defined an exception to free speech, lol
Now as for this news post it's basically rehashing the same thing that's been on the news for the last month. There is a court system that governs the NSA. It's ruled along previous legal precedents going back some 50+ years (the FBI can ARCHIVE your communications and then access them with a legal go-ahead/warrant/etc depending, just like the NSA). Of course this is the media, so it has to be outrageous. Hence the current situation. I don't think this is an exception to the fourth amendment at all, but my legal opinion holds little weight in the real world. At the very worst, it'll be just like the FBI, and I don't think they were considered particularly heinous last I checked?
[QUOTE=Hamm0;41350583]this is absolute bullshit, who do these people think they are?[/QUOTE]
a bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world
[QUOTE=scout1;41350887]You just defined an exception to free speech, lol
[/QUOTE]
I'm just going to point out that if you don't have the capacity to read his statement and understand that he was using that argument as a way of defending his own point, you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.
As an added point, if you can't be trusted to read a short statement like that and break it down into its meaningful parts, how the hell can I trust any of your other posts if you do not provide sources for me to backtrack your information.
[QUOTE=valkery;41350968]I'm just going to point out that if you don't have the capacity to read his statement and understand that he was using that argument as a way of defending his own point, you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.
As an added point, if you can't be trusted to read a short statement like that and break it down into its meaningful parts, how the hell can I trust any of your other posts if you do not provide sources for me to backtrack your information.[/QUOTE]
scout doesn't actually read the posts that he replies to.
We've known this for years, or we should know at least.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;41350739]While this is probably a jab at Glitch, I personally don't think there should be any exceptions to freedom of speech. Even those "wull, if u yell fire in a theater ok wat then??" arguments I find fucking ridiculous. If you yell fire, and there isn't any, and somebody dies from it? Yeah, that should be [i]negligent manslaughter[/i] because you're an idiot and you got somebody killed. I was never a fan of limiting what people can do simply because it might be bad, that's got the same broken moral justification as Jim Crow laws.[/QUOTE]
No, this has a perfectly valid justification because yelling "fire" in a crowded indoor place is bound to disrupt the peace, probably get people hurt, and disrupt everything. Your freedom ends where the peace and wellbeing of others begin.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
You don't wait for something that is inevitably going to cause bad things to happen and then clean up the mess, you prevent it from ever happening in the first place if at all possible, even if it means the idiot asshole doesn't get to scream and yell all of the threats or things he wants to. It is fine to limit people when they [i]need[/i] to be limited for the safety and wellbeing of others and the upholding of peace.
That's fucked up.
[quote]The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court[/quote]
This is really nothing new.
[quote]In one recent case, for instance, intelligence officials were able to access an e-mail attachment sent within the United States because they said they were worried that the e-mail contained a schematic drawing or a diagram possibly connected to Iran’s nuclear program.
In the past, that probably would have required a court warrant because the suspicious e-mail involved American communications.
In this case, however, a little-noticed provision in a 2008 law, expanding the definition of “foreign intelligence” to include biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, was used to justify access to the message.[/quote]
[quote]Okay seriously. SPREAD THE FUCKING WORD. Point out to people that are completely apathetic that they are outright ignoring the constitution your country is built upon. I can't believe how many times I'm repeating myself.
No wait I was saying "Fucking protest" all the time. Eh that works too.[/quote]
Mr. Iceland, the court circumvents this whole "ignoring constitution" shit by the Special Needs Doct. an exception to the 4th amendment.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;41350921]a bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world[/QUOTE]
There's something wrong. They all died over 100 years ago.
[QUOTE=areolop;41351248]This is really nothing new.
Mr. Iceland, the court circumvents this whole "ignoring constitution" shit by the Special Needs Doct. an exception to the 4th amendment.[/QUOTE]
Am I Mr.Iceland?
Either way, rated bad reading;
[quote] [b]expanded the use in terrorism cases[/b] of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine [b]and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s[/b] requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.[/quote]
[quote]“It seems like a legal stretch,” William C. Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University, said in response to a description of the decision. “It’s another way of tilting the scales toward the government in its access to all this data.”[/quote]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;41350739]While this is probably a jab at Glitch, I personally don't think there should be any exceptions to freedom of speech. Even those "wull, if u yell fire in a theater ok wat then??" arguments I find fucking ridiculous. If you yell fire, and there isn't any, and somebody dies from it? Yeah, that should be [i]negligent manslaughter[/i] because you're an idiot and you got somebody killed. I was never a fan of limiting what people can do simply because it might be bad, that's got the same broken moral justification as Jim Crow laws.[/QUOTE]
You know freedom of speech was installed so you could say what you want about the [B]government[/B] without getting hauled off to an ominous tower somewhere, right?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41351297]There's something wrong. They all died over 100 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows Cipher took control of the NSA by 1974 :v:.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41350252]Man, don't you just love our legal system?[/QUOTE]
So uh, the Fourth Amendment is designed specifically to allow exceptions. There are loads of exceptions to the warrant requirement. This isn't the first. Which is funny, because in this situation they still need the approval of a court (not for a warrant, but because the "special needs doctrine" still requires cooperation with the court to protect the individual from arbitrary intrusions). Try reading the doctrine itself, maybe brush up on the 4th as well?
Also, I'd like to point out that every judge on the FISA court is appointed by the Chief Justice. The "significant interpretation" is an expansion of a previous Supreme Court decision, made by judges appointed by the Supreme Court. So yeah, who's responsible for who exactly? Parallel court my ass.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41351348]Am I Mr.Iceland?
Either way, rated bad reading;[/QUOTE]
Do you actually know what these things mean, or do you assume any exception to the Constitution is a bad thing?
[QUOTE=rilez;41351444]So uh, the Fourth Amendment is designed specifically to allow exceptions.[/QUOTE]
If this is true then I feel stupid. :v:
[QUOTE=rilez;41351444]So uh, the Fourth Amendment is designed specifically to allow exceptions. There are loads of exceptions to the warrant requirement. This isn't the first. Which is funny, because in this situation they still need the approval of a court (not for a warrant, but because the "special needs doctrine" still requires cooperation with the court to protect the individual from arbitrary intrusions). Try reading the doctrine itself, maybe brush up on the 4th as well?
Also, I'd like to point out that every judge on the FISA court is appointed by the Chief Justice. The "significant interpretation" is an expansion of a previous Supreme Court decision, made by judges appointed by the Supreme Court. So yeah, who's responsible for who exactly? Parallel court my ass.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
Do you actually know what these things mean, or do you assume any exception to the Constitution is a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
Well I by no means claim to be in a law program. That being said, I did a bit of a research just now and found that the 'Special Needs' doctrine is made to balance different objectives. From a NYU document I found this;
[quote]
MacWade v. Kelly (2nd Cir. 2006)
• This case deals with the suspicionlesss container searches implemented on the New York City subway system in order to safeguard against a terrorist attack.
• Special Needs Doctrine:
o First, as a threshold matter, the search must “serve as its immediate purpose an objective distinct from the ordinary evidence gathering associated with crime investigation”.
o Second, the court determines whether the search is reasonable by balancing several competing considerations including (1) the weight and immediacy of the government interest, (2) the nature of the privacy interest allegedly compromised by the search, (3) the character of the intrusion imposed by the search, and (4) the efficacy of the search in advancing the government interest.
• The court holds that the special needs doctrine may apply even where, as here, the subject of a search possesses a full privacy expectation.
• The court held that this program satisfies the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment’s usual requirement of individualized suspicion because (1) preventing a terrorist attack in the subway is a special need; (2) that need is weighty; (3) the program is a reasonably effective deterrent; and (4) even though the searches intrude on a full privacy interest,[B] they do so to a minimal degree.[/B]
[/quote]
Now that being compared with the court ruling to extend the meaning to the NSA's recently publicized activities raises my alarm. It may be true that they are setting precedents, but the issue is that they do so almost unilaterally, with no public oversight.
[quote]The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal the expanded role of [B]a court that regularly assesses broad constitutional questions and establishes important precedents, almost always without public scrutiny[/B], according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.
Ultimately, I just posted this in the news section because it was in the news. I apologize I'm not as Law savvy as you.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41351754]
Now that being compared with the court ruling to extend the meaning to the NSA's recently publicized activities raises my alarm. It may be true that they are setting precedents, but the issue is that they do so almost unilaterally, with no public oversight.[/QUOTE]
You just described every part of the judicial branch in every western country
Also, could you please send the word up the grapevine about the editor not working on posts. It is really starting to get rather bothersome.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=scout1;41351768]You just described every part of the judicial branch in every western country[/QUOTE]
So that's a good thing? I disagree with quietism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.