NSA under fire: Supreme Court to review legality of warrantless wiretapping of Americans

NSA under fire: Supreme Court to review legality of warrantless wiretapping of Americans

rt.com

Phone calls to Prague? Emails to Ecuador? The United States government can currently sift through any international communication that crosses outside of American territory, but all that might soon change.

The US Supreme Court decided on Monday this week that they will consider a case that challenges the powers for the federal government established in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a legislation that allows authorities a wide breadth when getting away with snooping into private conversation in the name of national security.

Although US President Barack Obama campaigned on changing FIS

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ground zero.. In the end all it takes is good people to do the right thing. It is down to intent. Now the NSA, after twisting words and snubbing their nose at Congress by saying they collect no information on Americans (while doing just that at their new state of the art center in Utah) will have to have their day in court. Fortunately, the Justice Dept (see Anonymous thread) has been a zero in the court room of late.. having their hands full with Obama care.. Well let us see if this holds in the Supreme court..

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

In the end-all, the NSA could give a flucking fly what the Supreme Court says, like all of our intell agencies, they will do WTF they want, when they want and to whom they want.

This should be reviewed. With that being said, I can't applause the Supreme Court for securing the peoples rights afforded to them by the 4th Amendment. It's their job, it's what they're supposed to do. I don't see anything extraordinary about this decision.I my personal opinion the Supreme Court is one of the main culprits of the downward trend in the U.S. They are the branch of the government that ensures the peoples rights are secured, and the Executive and Legislative branches don't become tyrannical and corrupt. They have so far, for all intensive purposes failed. Just my opinion of course.

It's sad to me that they even have to review it at all. It should have been struck down immediately......

A) Why would I believe the Supremes are suddenly looking after our interests; and

B) Why would I believe any 3-letter agency is going to suddenly start to abide by any legalities?

The only outcome I can see is that the court will add their weight to the NSA and throw us all under the bus....

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
A) Why would I believe the Supremes are suddenly looking after our interests; and

B) Why would I believe any 3-letter agency is going to suddenly start to abide by any legalities?

The only outcome I can see is that the court will add their weight to the NSA and throw us all under the bus....

Or if the S.C. makes a judgment in the People's favor, then Obama can ride that to November for his completely fictitious pro-privacy and less gov't intervention platforms.

Just more of the same drivel...

We have all been sold out.

Now they want us to believe the Supreme Court is looking after our rights?

What is there to review...It's obviously unconstitutional.

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular
In the end-all, the NSA could give a flucking fly what the Supreme Court says, like all of our intell agencies, they will do WTF they want, when they want and to whom they want.

I totally agree. The Supreme Court can make any ruling they want, the real issue is enforcement. The court can tell the NSA to stop, but who is going to make sure that they do? From the Patriot Act to NDAA, and all of the incarnates of SOPA/ACTA (and the list goes on) the past two administrations have defecated all over the American people's civil rights...and few seem to care. How people buy into the "if you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about" spiel is beyond me. If one feels that way, then put cameras in you home and broadcast 24/7. Few would do it because it's ludicrous. Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean anyone has the right to know that I have nothing to hide. I don't get it. I just don't get it....

I am hesitant to point this out, but... this is really more of a propaganda piece than news...

Our duly elected representatives already surrendered our rights in this matter when they (in our name) retroactively pardoned the industry for engaging as facilitators of warrant-less wire-tapping years ago.

Sure they had their reasons... and they still do... but as to whether we, as citizens, have any redress in the matter is moot.

The reason I am hesitant to diminish the value of this report is that many Americans still - to this day - think they have some kind of protection against this sort of thing, and frankly, more of them should be made aware that the people in our government have moved from serving us to ruling us... this is a key aspect of the illusion of our rights that American media will not address (generally speaking.)

The Russian Times staff are not ignorant of the 'done deal' this represents... but they are keen to keep our interest peaked because every time we must turn to them as a source for information we take another baby-step towards a global-information market.. it's part of the overall strategy towards a goal many fail to see.

NSA is hardly under fire over this. If anything, Supreme Court rulings have confirmed that they - and anyone whose help they enlist - will be above the law as long as they can make the assertion "national security is at stake."..... interestingly... no one has to "prove" it's true... they just need to 'say the words.'

Originally posted by Maxmars

NSA is hardly under fire over this. If anything, Supreme Court rulings have confirmed that they - and anyone whose help they enlist - will be above the law as long as they can make the assertion "national security is at stake."..... interestingly... no one has to "prove" it's true... they just need to 'say the words.'

And this isn't a new phenomenon either.

I have the court transcripts from the trial of Frank "F. J." Camper who was convicted for 5+years to solitary confinement during the Iran Contra years (80s). He and his defense counsel were completely throttled (read as no testimony allowed) by the judge because his work with the CIA, FBI, ATF Army Mil Intel and others were considered too sensitive for "national security" reasons. He was one of dozens of Iran Contra intel agents who were cut off at the knees by Ollie North and company to keep them quiet and Ronald Reagan's plausible deniability intact.

Lately the most provocative case is Sibel Edmonds.

Boiling Frogs

Originally posted by Maxmars

The reason I am hesitant to diminish the value of this report is that many Americans still - to this day - think they have some kind of protection against this sort of thing, and frankly, more of them should be made aware that the people in our government have moved from serving us to ruling us... this is a key aspect of the illusion of our rights that American media will not address (generally speaking.)

The Russian Times staff are not ignorant of the 'done deal' this represents... but they are keen to keep our interest peaked because every time we must turn to them as a source for information we take another baby-step towards a global-information market.. it's part of the overall strategy towards a goal many fail to see.

wow Really well posted, star for you, Sir.

I hate the NSA but i also hate this tyranny of the unelected Supreme Court. Why do those 9 old goats have final say on everything.? What kind of democracy is that.?

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


If you worked at the NSA you would want the possibility of wiretapping services as well. Their job is to keep you safe after all, isn't it?

reply to post by QQXXw


Actually, that is not their job, unless you accept the broad brush-stroke of public relations doublespeak.

"Keeping us safe" is a shallow aphorism used by most publicly-funded institutions. In reality, the NSA mission - as described by their own personnel is:

...

NSA/CSS is unique among the U.S. defense agencies because of our government-wide responsibilities. NSA/CSS provides products and services to the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, government agencies, industry partners, and select allies and coalition partners. In addition, we deliver critical strategic and tactical information to war planners and war fighters.

.... Our Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. Our Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.

NSA/CSS exists to protect the Nation. Our customers know they can count on us to provide what they need, when they need it, wherever they need it.

I have highlighted in bold the only (and newest) addition to the mission... hitherto, the NSA was strictly used for the purpose of coping with "foreign" intelligence... not domestic police matters.

In the highlighted portion above I can't help but get a sense that "consistent with U.S. laws" and "the protection of privacy and civil liberties." are flawed - if not downright incorrect. As we can see - the "laws" and "protections" they cite are flexible and retroactively (although unconstitutional) malleable to political expedience.

While the Supreme Court may have defaulted on it's responsibility to "balance" the power of the Executive and Legislative branches; they have almost unilaterally changed the nature of our governance... and thus the national culture. But this of course, is only an opinion... and one they are not concerned with, I'm sure....

It's difficult to say where the NSA begins and where the military ends especially since the USCYBERCOMM has the same head in Comm Gen Alexander as the NSA.

Keith Alexander

Which places both of them under DoD/Pentagon. I don't believe that those fools are people-oriented.

Too many pessimists IMO.

I for one am glad this is being posted and discussed. If it were as bad as many make it out to be, this wouldn't have been able to be posted and discussed out in the open.

There still may be hope for us yet.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Too many pessimists IMO.

I for one am glad this is being posted and discussed. If it were as bad as many make it out to be, this wouldn't have been able to be posted and discussed out in the open.

Let me make sure I understand your line of thought. Because ATS exists, and so this thread exists, you feel fully vested in free speech, privacy, habeus corpus Posse Comitatus and your now trashed civil liberties?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
There still may be hope for us yet.

No. The apathy speaks for the populace.

We (USA) is cooked. Done.

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


Fair enough.

I wont argue with someone who has already surrendered.

What would be the point?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

 

Fair enough.

I wont argue with someone who has already surrendered.

What would be the point?

If your point is to "save me" or keep me in the sheepfold, there is none. If your point of posting is to argue a platform of a vision of America long since past, then expect derision to follow your delusion.

So what is your point?