• NSA's bulk collection of data likely unconstitutional, says judge
    12 replies, posted
[URL]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/16/federal-judge-rulesagainstnsaspying.html[/URL] [QUOTE]In an [I][B][U]opinion[/U][/B][/I] Monday, Judge Richard Leon said the US government seriously infringed privacy through spy program A federal judge said Monday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches but put his decision on hold, pending a near certain government appeal. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange, concluding that they were expected to prevail in their constitutional challenge. Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the two men are likely to be able to show that their privacy interests outweigh the government's interest in collecting the data. He added that means its massive collection program is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval," he said in his opinion. "Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment." [/QUOTE]
I'd be willing to wager that even if this goes to a supreme court and is ruled unconstitutional, nothing will happen. There will be a big media frenzy and one or two people [I]might[/I] be sent to jail, but just a month or two later everything will start right back up again, except they will do their best to keep all of the activity under the rug.
Can we rule secret courts unconstitutional yet?
[QUOTE=Maegord;43206830]Can we rule secret courts unconstitutional yet?[/QUOTE] There are a lot of times when law enforcement needs to keep what they're doing under wraps- secret courts are needed for the executive branch to work properly.
[QUOTE=Maegord;43206830]Can we rule secret courts unconstitutional yet?[/QUOTE] The secret courts rule the secret courts constitutional then.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;43206932]That doesn't justify how horribly that can be abused and when this bit of text is plain to see in the constitution; [I]"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and [b]public trial[/b], by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."[/I] I don't think anyone has any business running secret trials.[/QUOTE] A secret trial and a secret court are two completely different things. What if law enforcement needs a wiretap? Should the person be present to defend themselves? It would completely destroy the purpose.
[QUOTE=zzaacckk;43207111]A secret trial and a secret court are two completely different things. What if law enforcement needs a wiretap? Should the person be present to defend themselves? It would completely destroy the purpose.[/QUOTE] A court approved wiretap and anything the NSA are doing are two completely different things. This is massive privacy invasion on a global scale.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;43206932]That doesn't justify how horribly that can be abused and when this bit of text is plain to see in the constitution; [I]"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and [b]public trial[/b], by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."[/I] I don't think anyone has any business running secret trials.[/QUOTE] "In all criminal prosecutions"
I just want shit to hit the fan already so something'll be done.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;43207535]I just want shit to hit the fan already so something'll be done.[/QUOTE] I've got my Limited Edition guy fawkes mask ready.
No shit it's unconstitutional. The only problem is the measure was approved by secret courts. There is no sort of case that is testing the constitutionality of these measures, and therefore it couldn't go to the supreme court to be reviewed. Unless the ACLU has sued them or something.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.