Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331203,00.html

:lifter

:munchin

BMT

[Ret10Echo]

Good

[SF_BHT]

Yeah!!!!!!! Some one is thinking there for once.....:lifter

[Tubbs]

I'm not tracking on this one guys.
Why is this a good thing?

[The Reaper]

I'm not tracking on this one guys.
Why is this a good thing?

Because people overseas communicating electronically who would do us harm have no right to expectations of privacy or the rights afforded to American citizens.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25064

TR

[SF_BHT]

Because people overseas communicating electronically who would do us harm have no right to expectations of privacy or the rights afforded to American citizens.

TR

X2

And it is the ACLU and they are against almost anything that helps protect America under the auspices of your freedom. Some times you have to give up a little freedom to be free of Idiots trying to kill you.

[grumpz]

this is definitely good news.

[The Reaper]

this is definitely good news.

It is if you are a terrorist.:rolleyes:

TR

[nmmirich]

Is anyone afraid of government abusing this program? I am happy we are using all our tools against foreigners but apprehensive about listening to American citizens. Our gov has a history of finding new uses for otherwise harmless programs. I think Orwell is rolling over.

[swpa19]

I am happy we are using all our tools against foreigners but apprehensive about listening to American citizens.

Thats like saying I support the troops, but not the mission.

I was going to answer in detail your comment, but there are a whole lot more on this board more learned and intelligent than me that would probably be happy to enlighten you. Ill just wait for them.

[nmmirich]

I don’t believe it is farfetched to draw a distinction between foreigners and citizens.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Fourth Amendment Constitution

[BMT (RIP)]

Let's say for what ever reason the program key's on the word NO DOZ' Then they check and the conversatiion is something like this " Honey I might be Heavy on my feet but I'm lite on the sheet's and when I get you in the No Doz'
motel, I'm going to put something on you AJAX want wash off". :D

They'll get a good laugh and move on.

BMT

[nmmirich]

If the gov was not wire tapping Americans why is Congress giving the telecommunication companies immunity against lawsuits filed by American citizens? “(CBS/AP) Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech before a conservative think tank, warned that if telecoms were not given immunity for past surveillance, they would hesitant to assist the government in the future, and is vital "to help us prevent another 9/11 down the road.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/national/main3748882.shtml

Here are some links to the whistleblower from the telecom's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aeKF-rOGA
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70621

I do not personally believe any malicious wiretapping has occurred but I am apprehensive because it could easily occur under this program without adequate oversight.

Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY. Benjamin Franklin

[Remington Raidr]

If the gov was not wire tapping Americans why is Congress giving the telecommunication companies immunity against lawsuits filed by American citizens? “(CBS/AP) Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech before a conservative think tank, warned that if telecoms were not given immunity for past surveillance, they would hesitant to assist the government in the future, and is vital "to help us prevent another 9/11 down the road.”

Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY. Benjamin Franklin

Duh. Read what Cheney said. If someone wanted you to do something but you knew there were politically motivated groups who would bring suit against you JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT and you were responsible for paying to defend against the suit, would you put yourself or your enterprise in harm's way? Maybe. My cash on the table says the average man in the gray flannel suit says no. Not because he or she does not want to help, but because they do not want to be the target of meritless lawsuits. Hence, the need for the law to shield these organizations, just like we have laws to protect whistleblowers. I'm sure, reading your posts and seeing you wringing your hands in worry, you love whistleblowers and hold such laws are all good.

Then, in a weak attempt to butress your position, or raise doubt, you rip off a true patriot's quote. That is weak, weak, weak.

Look junior, as a citizen of the United States I enjoy certain protections against government authority. If you do a little research you might realize that these protections CHANGE with the circumstances. I will give you an example and go real slow, just for you. If Deputy Fife stops me driving my motor vehicle and does not have a warrant signed by a judge and he searches my vehicle without my consent whatever he found and is trying to use as evidence against me may be suppressed if that evidence was unconstitutionally obtained. So far, so good? I hope so.

Same scenario, I am a lawful citizen of the United States operating my motor vehicle. The only difference is I am crossing the border from Canada or Mexico. Does Inspector Fife need a warrant to search my vehicle? Will that kilo of cocaine be suppressed? FUCK NO. At a border crossing the standard is different. You would be well served to do a little study on search and seizure law instead of gazing at your navel, which just leaves you in the perfect position for Machmoud to lop off your head.

Think, grasshopper. These calls were "crossing the border". Different standard.

Here is another quote for your quiver, although I can't remember who said it:

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

It's good you are looking out for our freedoms. Keep looking.

[Tubbs]

Because people overseas communicating electronically who would do us harm have no right to expectations of privacy or the rights afforded to American citizens.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25064

TR

Thank you for the article. I was under the impression that this was being primarily used on domestic targets.
That cleared up a good amount of ambiguity for me.

[The Reaper]

Thank you for the article. I was under the impression that this was being primarily used on domestic targets.
That cleared up a good amount of ambiguity for me.

That is exactly what the libs, the Dems, and the media would like for you to believe about it.

TR

[nmmirich]

The articles clearly state that the gov was looking at domestic calls and electronic communication. I have spoken to numerous attorneys’, all of which said the program is illegal. I have a BA in history and would wager have read more than most on American history. I don’t believe my age affects my ability to learn from such history and I do not make ad hominem attacks. In my opinion the quote applies and I respect your opinion that it does not.. If the gov is listening to our private conversations, it is against the constitution. Furthermore the courts and jury are responsible for protecting against frivolous law suits not special laws for certain companies under some circumstances.

[Tubbs]

That is exactly what the libs, the Dems, and the media would like for you to believe about it.

TR

Thank you again sir.
Its hard sometimes to seperate the truth from the BS where the media is concerned. That is one of the reason that I like getting information from this site. I appreciate you allowing me to participate here. I have learned a great deal.

If only al-Queda were on steroids indeed...

[The Reaper]

The articles clearly state that the gov was looking at domestic calls and electronic communication. I have spoken to numerous attorneys’, all of which said the program is illegal. I have a BA in history and would wager have read more than most on American history. I don’t believe my age affects my ability to learn from such history and I do not make ad hominem attacks. In my opinion the quote applies and I respect your opinion that it does not.. If the gov is listening to our private conversations, it is against the constitution. Furthermore the courts and jury are responsible for protecting against frivolous law suits not special laws for certain companies under some circumstances.

You do understand that all calls have a point of origin, and a destination? In addition, many also happen to transit US domestic call centers and switching equipment?

Yes, it includes voice and data, to include texts, emails, etc. Do you think terrorists have not learned to use modern technology when it suits their cause?

I do believe that your age limits your view of history, having lived through so little of it. What do you remember about the Soviet Union, for example?

Lawyers are in business to make money, and they only have to get lucky with a jury once. Where do you think John Edwards got the money for his palatial digs? The representation of both sides in a tort case are normally compensated.

Like it or not, tort law in this country needs to be reformed.

I wish I knew as much as you seem to at your age. Some drills and a platoon sergeant are going to have their work cut out for them.

TR

[nmmirich]

Thank you for the response Reaper, I understand the argument that phone calls and emails that cross national boarders should be searched however I believe we need safeguards. FISA courts were designed to do this however they were bypassed by the NSA. Many sources report this program has gone beyond international communications to include those that both originated and were received in the US. If this is true I believe it to be wrong. In response to the Soviet Union question: Do to my age I cannot say I personally remember much accept a vague recollection of the wall coming down. I have read about it and taken several classes on subjects like brinksmanship and the cold war. As far as Tort law is concerned, I do not have a position. I know Tort law originates in English common law (which our system is founded on) and is around a thousand years old. Under the same logic with respect to Tort Law I suppose we are all constrained by our age, limiting our view of history, having lived through so little of it.” If it comes out that the gov has been eavesdropping on domestic calls would you be against it? I recently served as a juror on a murder trial I defiantly agree that it is easy for one jury to make a mistake, however we have a system of appeals, remitter, admitter, summary judgment, demure, directed verdict, summary adjudication… Each of which test the validity of the case. All these checks and balances are already in place. I do not think a special law for a minority company is necessary. If a similar law was passed for the Automotive industry we would still have cars like the Pinto or Corvair. These billion dollar companies have adequate legal teams. I did not have any issues with my drills or Sergeants at military school or in ROTC but I see your point. I had no other motive than to participate in a conversation in which I had researched.

[GratefulCitizen]

The articles clearly state that the gov was looking at domestic calls and electronic communication.

Your antecedent ("the articles") is unclear.
I'm assuming you're referring to the article referenced in the first post.


I have spoken to numerous attorneys’, all of which said the program is illegal.


Numerous attorneys (no apostrophe is necessary for the plural) spoke with the 6th Circuit.
Numerous attorneys spoke with the Supreme Court.

They didn't agree that the program was illegal.


I have a BA in history and would wager have read more than most on American history.


Graduation ceremonies are commonly called "commencement" ceremonies.
What is the definition of commencement?


I don’t believe my age affects my ability to learn from such history and I do not make ad hominem attacks.


Age (or lack thereof) does limit the amount of opportunity someone has had to learn.


In my opinion the quote applies and I respect your opinion that it does not.
If the gov is listening to our private conversations, it is against the constitution.


You may eschew ad hominem, but this is a fine example of petitio principii.

The Constitution says that the Courts decide what is or is not against the Constitution.
(Courts such as the 6th Circuit and the Supreme Court)


Furthermore the courts and jury are responsible for protecting against frivolous law suits not special laws for certain companies under some circumstances.


"Special laws" can always be challenged in court.

[swpa19]

I have a BA in history and would wager have read more than most on American history.

Ya know lad, Im admittedly NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer. And, I'm a comparative "newbie" on this board. BUT, Ive watched you spew your pseudo intellectual rhetoric on different threads.

You seem oblivious to the true experience and intelligence of individuals that frequent this site.

There's an old saying here on the WV Border. "There's a time to stand up, and a time to shut up".

You say you have a BA and your proficient in History. You should consider this a "tuition free" site, and use it to further your education.

Most of the QP here have been on this earth probably twice as long as you. Give them some credit for their intelligence and experience.

[The Reaper]

nmmirich:

You might want to search the word "shovel" and "digging" here and see what we advise in these situations.

BTW, virtually all of the QPs posting have degrees, many have Masters, and some even have PhDs.

I would not flaunt a recently earned baccalaureate in History as my creds here. A good number of members of this board have made history, and lived to write about it.

TR

[nmmirich]

It seems any opinion not congruent with the majority is discouraged. I did not intend to flaunt any achievement of mine, I am aware it does not match most on this site. I only mentioned my degree to qualify myself as a student of history following an attack. I would not purposely insult others on the site however I see my presence has done just that. I will not post anything further

[CoLawman]

I'm not tracking on this one guys.
Why is this a good thing?


IMHO:

Good: ACLU, being the ACLU, pursued an action against the US government as plaintiff. The 6th dismissed the suit on standing. (ACLU could not prove harm to itself by the TSP) Supreme Court agreed with the 6th. It was a smack down, plain and simple.

The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.

A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.

Bad:

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was outed by the traitorous mass media. The TSP no longer exists and we are back to using FISA rules for all intercepts.

Ugly:

Drawing comparisons to the Terrorist Surveillance Plan and Animal Farm or 1984.

[Team Sergeant]

It seems any opinion not congruent with the majority is discouraged. I did not intend to flaunt any achievement of mine, I am aware it does not match most on this site. I only mentioned my degree to qualify myself as a student of history following an attack. I would not purposely insult others on the site however I see my presence has done just that. I will not post anything further

Actually that's as far from the truth as one could be, ask x-factor.

If it is your perception that a difference of opinion constitutes a "virtual attack" and that you have suffered an "attack" then yes you are on the wrong website.

Team Sergeant

[CoLawman]

The articles clearly state that the gov was looking at domestic calls and electronic communication. I have spoken to numerous attorneys’, all of which said the program is illegal. I have a BA in history and would wager have read more than most on American history. I don’t believe my age affects my ability to learn from such history and I do not make ad hominem attacks. In my opinion the quote applies and I respect your opinion that it does not.. If the gov is listening to our private conversations, it is against the constitution. Furthermore the courts and jury are responsible for protecting against frivolous law suits not special laws for certain companies under some circumstances.



Google Minimization.........you won't find it in history books. Further... You are absolutely incorrect regarding the government's listening to private conversations is against the constitution. By making such an assertion you prove that your understanding of the constitution and law is cursory at best.

I would recommend you continue to take part in the forums. It will teach you to look closely at a topic before posting inflammatory and misguided opinions. To take your ball and go home is to your detriment. Just my two cents.

[Roguish Lawyer]

This case was decided based upon the well-established Constitutional principle that you can't bring a lawsuit if you haven't been personally harmed. Nothing remarkable about it at all.

[Tubbs]

Bad:

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was outed by the traitorous mass media. The TSP no longer exists and we are back to using FISA rules for all intercepts.

Ugly:

Drawing comparisons to the Terrorist Surveillance Plan and Animal Farm or 1984.

Thank you for taking the time to address my question.
If I may, I would like to ask one more since you gentlemen seem to have access to more truthful information on the topic, or you're smarter than I am and can cut through the BS better, probobly both.
What were (or are) the safeguards in place the kept this system from being abused?
There obviously must have been several since its constitutionality was upheld in this court case, but according to most media outlets the TSP ate babies and killed puppies.

[x-factor]

Actually that's as far from the truth as one could be, ask x-factor.

If it is your perception that a difference of opinion constitutes a "virtual attack" and that you have suffered an "attack" then yes you are on the wrong website.

Team Sergeant


Indeed. I've found most posters on this site (and all of the QPs) to be ardent but always respectful in their opinions. If you know your issue (and/or are willing to admit when you don't) and present a thorough, well-reasoned, and respectful argument, then you shouldn't have a problem.

Or, more concisely, if you're going to argue, bring your A-game.

[Wired]

Maybe I'm off mark here, but why would any citizen of this country need to worry about ANY surveillance, foreign OR domestic, if you're not participating in anything heinous?

Sounds like people trying to protect their unethical deeds.

Just my .02, if I've missed, let me know.

[GratefulCitizen]

It seems any opinion not congruent with the majority is discouraged. I did not intend to flaunt any achievement of mine, I am aware it does not match most on this site. I only mentioned my degree to qualify myself as a student of history following an attack. I would not purposely insult others on the site however I see my presence has done just that. I will not post anything further

Nobody is trying to attack you.

It is merely a debate. Disagreements will happen.

If you fervently believe your position and wish to advocate it, more power to you.

Please extend to others the courtesy of allowing them to advocate their positions and, if they disagree, rebut yours.

Your posts have a certain "tone" to them.
Expect the tone of the responses to be in-kind.

My "commencement" comment was meant to make a point:
Receiving your degree is the beginning of learning, not the completion thereof.

Some advice:
-If you wish to learn, grow a thick skin like everyone else.
-Don't look to others to validate your position.
-Let challenges to your position to be a opportunity to excercise your mind.
-If you feel you are right, stick to your guns. But, do so with an open mind.
-If someone attempts to correct you, they may be doing you a favor.
-If you discover that you may be mistaken about something, there is no shame in these three words: I stand corrected.

The QP's here are an invaluable resource and have freely offered their insight into many things.
It would be difficult to find a finer assembly of teachers.

[mdb23]

Maybe I'm off mark here, but why would any citizen of this country need to worry about ANY surveillance, foreign OR domestic, if you're not participating in anything heinous?


The same reason that most people would object to the Police searching their homes, cars, or conducting random firearm inventory checks without cause...... Americans are kinda touchy when it comes to a perceived infringement of rights, fearing a slippery slope toward Big Brother.

Back to the original topic...... Technology changes, and we (society, the military, LE, and Intelligence Agencies) have to change. If we are strapped by rules made in a different day and age, then we have lost.

The rules regarding phone surveillance and "wire tapping" were made back when each house had one phone number, it was a land line, and that was the only way to communicate. That was then.

Now, we have disposable (anonymous) pre pay track phones, phone cards, numbers can be run through internet proxies, ghost numbers, internet phone service, text messaging, instant messaging, video messaging, etc....... This is now.

You think an organized terrorist cell is going to use the same phone long enough for you to get a warrant for that number? Hell, even street level drug dealers are more sophistaicated than that....

Like it or not, this type of surveillance is a matter of survival in the telecommunications age..

[rubberneck]

The Constitution says that the Courts decide what is or is not against the Constitution. (Courts such as the 6th Circuit and the Supreme Court).

Just thought I would point out that this is incorrect. The Court decided that it had the sole responsibility to determine Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison. The right to do so was not conferred upon them by the Constitution but taken by Judicial fiat.

[Remington Raidr]

Just thought I would point out that this is incorrect. The Court decided that it had the sole responsibility to determine Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison. The right to do so was not conferred upon them by the Constitution but taken by Judicial fiat.

In the rock, paper, scissors of the three branches of government, the legislature has the plenary power, in that they can amend the constitution if the SCOTUS goes nuts.

[CoLawman]

Thank you for taking the time to address my question.
If I may, I would like to ask one more since you gentlemen seem to have access to more truthful information on the topic, or you're smarter than I am and can cut through the BS better, probobly both.
What were (or are) the safeguards in place the kept this system from being abused?
There obviously must have been several since its constitutionality was upheld in this court case, but according to most media outlets the TSP ate babies and killed puppies.

Since the TSP is Top Secret there is very little known about the safeguards. AG Alberto Gonzales did state that the TSP was only employed when one party to the communication is outside the continental United States. Further probable cause must exist that one of the two parties is linked to Al Queda or an affiliated terrorist organization.

I think this link will further enlighten you on the TSP.


http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/surveillance19.pdf

This is the Bush administrations answer to inquiries about TSP.

[rubberneck]

In the rock, paper, scissors of the three branches of government, the legislature has the plenary power, in that they can amend the constitution if the SCOTUS goes nuts.

No they can't. They can propse Constitutional Amendments but the final power in determining what gets amended is the states.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[longrange1947]

Why do I get the feeling that 'some' feel that there is a room filled with thousands of guys, drinking gallons of coffee, and smoking tons of cigarettes listening in on everyone's phone conversations? :munchin

Even if you said, from overseas to here to your best friend, "That party was the bomb"; no "one" would listen in on that conversation and no one would note who said it. Think about it. ;)

[GratefulCitizen]

Just thought I would point out that this is incorrect. The Court decided that it had the sole responsibility to determine Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison. The right to do so was not conferred upon them by the Constitution but taken by Judicial fiat.

Good point. I stand corrected.

Maybe this is better:
The Supreme Court has decided that Constitution says that the Courts decide what is or is not against the Constitution.
(That would make the power of judicial review a shining example of petitio principii)
:D

[GratefulCitizen]

Why do I get the feeling that 'some' feel that there is a room filled with thousands of guys, drinking gallons of coffee, and smoking tons of cigarettes listening in on everyone's phone conversations? :munchin

Even if you said, from overseas to here to your best friend, "That party was the bomb"; no "one" would listen in on that conversation and no one would note who said it. Think about it. ;)

Thought about it.

Here's a conjecture:

Given that there's a finite amount of human judgement which can be applied to the issue, there will be a sifting process.
After the data mining has been done, the actuaries cook up a nice little "profile" which maximizes the effectiveness of limited resources.
This "profile" would not likely be equally representative of all groups (ethnic, religious, etc.).

How much money could a good trial lawyer make off of this fact?

If, by chance, there existed some politicians who would put the needs of their career ahead of the nation's security, they might be tempted to make political hay once a the lawsuits began.
Let's just hope such politicians don't exist. :rolleyes:


If telecom companies lost money in lawsuits as a consequence of all this they might be tempted to do something about it.
Perhaps they might invent ways to increase customer anonymity.
(which would encumber intelligence gathering efforts)

This way, they could fully cooperate with authorities and have some protection from civil liability associated with politically incorrect "profiles".
But then again, why would a for-profit company be motivated to protect their bottom line? :rolleyes:


Whatever the details are, we can be assured (by the MSM) that any/all problems are Bush's fault.

[Remington Raidr]

No they can't. They can propse Constitutional Amendments but the final power in determining what gets amended is the states.

Ya got me, BUT I was just comparing the power of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.

[swpa19]

Just finished reading the last 5 or 6 posts. That is what a DISCUSSION is all about. An informative learning process.