It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. judge rules "phone surveillance program" ie NSA spying is likely unlawful.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
U.S. judge rules phone surveillance program is likely unlawful.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government's gathering of Americans' phone records is likely unlawful, a judge ruled on Monday, raising "serious doubts" about the value of the National Security Agency's so-called metadata counterterrorism program.

"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," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote in a 68-page ruling.

The U.S. Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling in a case brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, described in court documents as the father of a cryptologist technician for the NSA who was killed in Afghanistan in 2011.

The judge ordered the government to stop collecting data about the two plaintiffs, who were Verizon Communications Inc customers.

"We believe the program is constitutional as previous judges have found," Department of Justice spokesman Andrew Ames said in a statement. Leon suspended enforcement of his injunction against the program "in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues" pending an expected appeal by the government. A U.S. official said an appeal was likely.

So the NSA's spying is likely illegal but no one can say for sure because we have to wait and see how the government will respond...

Didnt Congress already vote to violate the Constitution?

House Vote 412 - Rejects Limits on N.S.A. Data Collection.

I suppose this vote would also be overturned should the establishment decide to uphold real law ie the Constitution?


Leon expressed skepticism of the program's value, writing that the government could not cite a single instance in which the bulk data actually stopped an imminent attack. "I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism," he wrote.

That is important, he added, because for the program to be constitutional, the government must show its effectiveness outweighs privacy interests.

Huh? What in the actual...

So, its ok to break the law and suspend our rights so long as the government shows some results? So the ends justify the means? Is this guy crazy?


And this is the deliberate doublethink: no one is suggesting that "bad guys" shouldnt be scrutinized. What Libertarians and true Constitutionalists are saying is go ahead and keep your eyes on the "bad guys", just show probable cause and get a warrant ie due process, which the government opposes.

Why?

Because then they wont be able to spy on everyone while using "terrorism" as the excuse, duh.


edit on 16-12-2013 by gladtobehere because: thread title




posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

gladtobehere

Leon expressed skepticism of the program's value, writing that the government could not cite a single instance in which the bulk data actually stopped an imminent attack. "I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism," he wrote.

That is important, he added, because for the program to be constitutional, the government must show its effectiveness outweighs privacy interests.

Huh? What in the actual...

So, its ok to break the law and suspend our rights so long as the government shows some results? So the ends justify the means? Is this guy crazy?


And this is the deliberate doublethink: no one is suggesting that "bad guys" shouldnt be scrutinized. What Libertarians and true Constitutionalists are saying is go ahead and keep your eyes on the "bad guys", just show probable cause and get a warrant ie due process, which the government opposes.

Why?

Because then they wont be able to spy on everyone while using "terrorism" as the excuse, duh.


edit on 16-12-2013 by gladtobehere because: thread title


The governments argument is that they have to infringe on liberties because the constitutional protections are too strong, they can't both allow them and keep us safe, so they've had to "reinterpret" those constitutional amendments. The judge saying the government has no results basically means they've justified large scale criminal behavior with no actual return. Meaning, by their own self imposed standards the program is a failure and can't be justified.



new topics
 
3

log in

join