Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Tubbs

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

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by nmmirich

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.

Originally Posted by nmmirich

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.

Originally Posted by nmmirich

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?

Originally Posted by nmmirich

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.

Originally Posted by nmmirich

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)

Originally Posted by nmmirich

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

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]

Originally Posted by Tubbs

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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.