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.
Source
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday said he would examine ways to block the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs before the Supreme Court.
“I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level,” vowed Paul on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I’m going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington,” he said.Hil
Source
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.
The leaked court order reveals the illegitimacy of jurisprudence that sticks its head in the sand rather than confronting vital social issues.
The constitutional standing doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Clapper vs. Amnesty International eviscerates judicial review, and enshrined the principle that the executive branch can commit any abuse under the sun, yet evade judicial review, as long as it does so in secret. The decision creates perverse incentives and could serve as a cornerstone in the further entrenchment of executive power going forward.
Similarly, the sheer breadth of the leaked order authorizing FBI surveillance confirms the inadequacy of secret courts. Courts exist to enforce our rights in the face of government abuses. That’s one of the central geniuses of the founding fathers and the system of checks and balances they constructed.
Department of Justice Inspector General's report revealed that the FBI violated Americans' privacy by abusing its power to issue its own warrants for personal records - National Security Letters (NSLs). Specifically, between 2003 and 2005, the FBI violated Americans Fourth Amendment rights and minimal oversight requirements by: ◦undercounting the NSLs issued in its reports to Congress;
◦failing to obtain follow-up subpoenas when promised,
◦issuing NSLs under claims of emergency circumstances, when no emergency existed,
◦failing to purge records obtained that had no ties to terrorism or foreign spying.
• The Department of Justice failed to meet its March 9 deadline for reporting to Congress on datamining as required by the PATRIOT Act, and
•The Bush Administration slipped a provision into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization allowing the attorney general to skirt the Senate confirmation process for U.S. Attorneys, by making indefinite interim appointments. This resulted in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - seemingly for political reasons.
Our Congressional representatives repeatedly asked us over the years to prove government abuses of the PATRIOT Act. We can now give them the proof they asked for, and use these abuses to demand change!
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ABNARTY
I'm going to take a wild guess that you haven't seen, personally, MAJOR scandal unfold in this nation before? It has been a long time...but it's a very real thing we're watching here.
If one would suggest a good % of Congress didn't know or suspect Iran/Contra was happening at the time, I'd call them ill informed or simply ignorant of the whole story there. Congress was surely aware, among SOME of them, what was happening here. However....There are some very big buts in there.
First, All of Congress is never told everything on sensitive issues. Not even a majority are. That's always been the case but really solidified in the first year of the 'War on Terror' under Bush when Congress came to be seen as one step from being an enemy itself, literally speaking, by their inability to keep anything quiet on even the most basic level. So any assumption that "Congress knew" meaning all 500+ members of it? Would be very far from how it works on The Hill.
Second...What they know is secondary to what they know. By that I mean, they know a level of information out of the public eye and in a real sense ....then they 'know' a whole different and lower level for the public consumption. When the two cross by means of major blowout like this, Congress has two choices in those who did actually know about it. They can be weasels (to our benefit, as it happens) and take down those they basically approved to do it ...or they can go down WITH THEM in the next election.
Historically, Congress doesn't fall on it's sword for much of anyone. Given Obama's open and outright hostility toward them for years? He's the last one in our nation's history they will do it for. The more this blows open, the more Congress's actions against the Executive become ones of personal survival and 'every politician for himself'.
What we're seeing is very real, IMO. Whether it holds momentum and carries through is another matter. If we get a Special Prosecutor? We'll know it's going the distance. ....BTW..DOJ *IS* part of the White House command. They are PART of the problem and have never been apart from it to be a fair broker to call anyone on it.edit on 9-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I'm not a single issue voter. But I'm going to lump Paul in with all the rest if there isn't a clear line drawn and drawn soon.
Patriot Act, Drones, all that have to go.
No waffling. No "conditional" approach to these issues.
If we don't see a candidate that is willing to get rid of these measures, then it's game over.
Originally posted by supremecommander
...we'll see who is who the true public servants are...
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by supremecommander
Originally posted by supremecommander
...we'll see who is who the true public servants are...
Well, here is a handy list: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 2nd Session: A bill to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years.
Originally posted by supremecommander
Quite the list of treasonous bastards we have there.
Originally posted by ABNARTY
Here are my questions:
1. Does a party of a contract have a reasonable expectation to privacy when they make a call? Disclaimer: I own a cell phone but have never made it through all the mumbo-jumbo of the contract I signed. My bad but I am not lawyer.
Because its being used for something more than what they are saying, imo. They are trying to downplay the extent of what they have been doing.
Originally posted by ABNARTY
2. "Apparently" all that is being collected is the meta data of a call I make. I find that hard to believe. Why have this hugely expensive system and then not know what it was I discussed but merely when/where/who I called?
Originally posted by ABNARTY
3. If this is indeed illegal according to SCOTUS, where is the DOJ today? If I commit a questionable crime today, no law enforcement agency is going to let me continue doing it until it gets before the 9 sometime down the road. Is this not telling enough?
Originally posted by ABNARTY
4. Sen Paul with good intentions I believe, stands little chance with such a public heads up of his intentions. Granted it sounds good for someone with Presidential aspirations but how effective is telegraphing that intent so the opposition has even more time to obfuscate and backroom deal.