• Federal Judge: NSA Can't Be Sued Because We "Shouldn't Know About it Anyway"
    85 replies, posted
I cannot make this shit up: [IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2013/12/pauley.jpg[/IMG] Sources: [url]http://iacknowledge.net/federal-judge-aclu-cant-sue-nsa-because-it-never-should-have-known-anyway/[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/27/the-most-kafkaesque-paragraph-from-todays-nsa-ruling/[/url]
This is dumb as fuck and sets a really shitty precedent
[QUOTE=Bazsil;43377234]This is dumb as fuck and sets a really shitty precedent[/QUOTE] Just think about it, you can now get away with anything by saying that the law shouldn't have known about it in the first place since you didn't tell them.
I guess I could go out, kill a bunch of people, do a half-assed job of hiding the bodies, and then claim that I can't be prosecuted because nobody was supposed to find out.
it's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark
"How can you sue that which does not exist?" Lousy Zen judges.
[QUOTE]could frustrate Congress's intent[/QUOTE] It's us, the people, that elect and fund congress. They should be answering to us instead of spying on us.
[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;43377265]it's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark[/QUOTE] that's not a victimless crime at all you dingus. a victimless crime would be something like prostitution or drug use.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;43377319]that's not a victimless crime at all you dingus. a victimless crime would be something like prostitution or drug use.[/QUOTE] it's a simpsons quote
[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;43377320]it's a simpsons quote[/QUOTE] who the fuck watches the simpsons, let alone quote it
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;43377319]that's not a victimless crime at all you dingus. a victimless crime would be something like prostitution or drug use.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling he was making a joke like taking a shot at the stupidity of it by making a stupid comparison
[QUOTE=Bazsil;43377234]This is dumb as fuck and sets a really shitty precedent[/QUOTE] Not really no, this is one of the most basic elements of US law, evidence obtained in an illegal fashion is inadmissable in court. Not saying this is right or anything, but it's not precedent setting, this is the same principle that says police can't use evidence found in unwarranted searches.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;43377336]Not really no, this is one of the most basic elements of US law, evidence obtained in an illegal fashion is inadmissable in court. Not saying this is right or anything, but it's not precedent setting, this is the same principle that says police can't use evidence found in unwarranted searches.[/QUOTE] This idea of illegal evidence only binds the governments, not the citizenry.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;43377325]who the fuck watches the simpsons, let alone quote it[/QUOTE] literally the entirety of pop culture
Doesn't this apply to, like, everything? You're not supposed to know if I kill my mother! YOU CAN'T SUE ME
Disclaimer: IANAL, and especially, IANYL. The judge ruled that the ACLU shouldn't be the party bringing this forward, the PATRIOT Act only allows telecomms etc. to complain, as far as I remember. But the constitutional arguments still remain, and this is also the subject of talk in some other case, by another judge. It's going to go ahead to the Supreme Court from either place, this isn't over. This is how I've understood it.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;43377223]I cannot make this shit up: [IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2013/12/pauley.jpg[/IMG] Sources: [url]http://iacknowledge.net/federal-judge-aclu-cant-sue-nsa-because-it-never-should-have-known-anyway/[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/27/the-most-kafkaesque-paragraph-from-todays-nsa-ruling/[/url][/QUOTE] Are they fucking for real!?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;43377336]Not really no, this is one of the most basic elements of US law, evidence obtained in an illegal fashion is inadmissable in court. Not saying this is right or anything, but it's not precedent setting, this is the same principle that says police can't use evidence found in unwarranted searches.[/QUOTE] For a criminal trial. Not for deciding whether something is lawful or not though. That's the reason when a cop is investigated for something there's a criminal trial followed by an administrative investigation which is actually in violation of the cop's fourth amendment rights and is thus inadmissible for the criminal investigation but can still be a deciding factor in whether the cop keeps their job.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;43377336]Not really no, this is one of the most basic elements of US law, evidence obtained in an illegal fashion is inadmissable in court. Not saying this is right or anything, but it's not precedent setting, this is the same principle that says police can't use evidence found in unwarranted searches.[/QUOTE] Okay, so I break into someones house and find a torture / rape room in their basement along with the still warm body of their latest victim... i guess theyre a-okay
land of the free lel
This country needs a revolution. But yeah, me first etc.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;43377534]Okay, so I break into someones house and find a torture / rape room in their basement along with the still warm body of their latest victim... i guess theyre a-okay[/QUOTE] If the basement is part-of or some how connected to congress, then probably.
System Corrupt? No, that can't be.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43377974]System Corrupt? No, that can't be.[/QUOTE] Only option now is to reformat/reinstall.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;43378102]Only option now is to reformat/reinstall.[/QUOTE] No, it's much too fargone for that. Time to thermite the sucker.
If a NSA falls in the forest, and nobody is there to see it. Can you sue it?
If this is upheld, the United States of America is now officially a surveillance state that does not listen to its people. This is not how a democracy functions. Even the intelligence service.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43378322]If this is upheld, the United States of America is now officially a surveillance state that does not listen to its people. This is not how a democracy functions. Even the intelligence service.[/QUOTE] Lots of countries have similar surveillance. You and others are reacting to this with suprise. Why is it so hard to accept that an intelligence agency gathers data? Being secretive about what they do is kind of necessary to make their methods more effective.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43378364]Lots of countries have similar surveillance. You and others are reacting to this with suprise. Why is it so hard to accept that an intelligence agency gathers data? Being secretive about what they do is kind of necessary to make their methods more effective.[/QUOTE] "Other countries do it" Is not a excuse to do it yourself.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43378364] Why is it so hard to accept that an intelligence agency gathers data? [/QUOTE] No one is mad because an intelligence agency is gathering standard intelligence data. Surely you've been living under a rock if you think thats really the core of the issue.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.