Back

ABA Journal

Home

Privacy Law

Surveillance court redefined ‘relevant’ and special-needs doctrine to permit broad data collection

Jul 8, 2013, 03:10 pm CDT

Comments

"11 judges appointed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr."

Says it all right there.

By American Patriot on 2013 07 08, 6:58 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By hiedak on 2013 07 08, 7:05 pm CDT

People are really overreacting here. NSA is doing a legitimate job. Terrorists are more sophisticated and cunning. There is no evidence that the current checks and balances (the FISA court) is inadequate, abusing its discretion, or ignoring the law. No evidence. Just paranoia and delusions from tin-foil hat types.

By Tip Fong on 2013 07 08, 7:29 pm CDT

We're spying on our allies. We're spying on ourselves. We don't really know if it's a "legitimate job," as it's all secret, Star Chamber stuff. The Tsarist Secret Police would be envious. The Inquisition would be envious. Even the Gestapo would be open-mouthed.

I can't even imagine what we are spending on this.

By B. McLeod on 2013 07 09, 6:02 am CDT

'We’re spying on our allies. We’re spying on ourselves.'

Always have, always will. You don't think Ben Franklin wasn't involved with spying on our French allies when he served as an Ambassador?

By American Patriot on 2013 07 09, 3:37 pm CDT

@ 5: True. But when we operate this way, we are compromising the confidentiality of all sorts of diplomatic communiques, which are supposedly sacrosanct. I suppose the question becomes one of do we want to "win" (--whatever that means--) by taking the moral high road, or are we now content to sink to the level we've despised in non-democratic governments?

And another thing--who is analyzing all of this data? Hopefully, people who are better at their job than the TSA....

I believe we can still deflect terrorism without compromising our Constitutional rights. The fact that a survey of Palestinians a few years back revealed that 70% of those surveyed would give up their land for a US green card and something like $50,000 in "seed money" so they could start their own business here indicates that the idea of democracy is a concept that can work. The fact that Egyptians are rioting because, in essence, their democratically elected government isn't more like the ones they see in the US and Europe indicates that the high road should not be abandoned.

By BMF on 2013 07 10, 3:13 pm CDT

Some of this is necessary the problem is it appears overbroad. How can the surveillance court serve "as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come”, when its opinions are presumably not published? Everything is secret so no one knows whether the rules are followed are not. Mr. McLeod has pointed out that there's an enormous expense for this type of surveillance and if it's as broad as it appears, most of that is wasted.

By George Sly on 2013 07 10, 3:37 pm CDT

So-called "terrorists" have legitimate grievances with no real option to petition for a government redress of those grievances. This right was so important it is found in our First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In the long run it is better policy to provide a real option to petition for a government redress of those grievances. Ask the folks in Northern Ireland, and [fill in the blank].

But as most people know who have actually tried to petition for a government redress of their grievances, including people in the United States, they find crony courts and a rigged legal system. The effort is too often a waste of time, money, sanity, and many years of one’s life.

No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace. It is really pretty simple.

Instead governments pursue endless and hopeless strategies to contain the lack of real redress, rather than give people a fair day in court, here in America, and most places in the world.

The war on terror is little more than welfare for warmongers.

Dahlia Wasfi : "No Justice No Peace" -Tell it Sister! Speak Truth to Power

http://youtu.be/SLolNj48IP8

Dahlia Wasfi is an Iraqi-American physician and peace activist. Born in 1971 in New York to a Jewish-American mother and Muslim Iraqi father, Dr. Wasfi spent part of her early childhood living in Iraq.

"I speak to you today on behalf of relatives on my mother's side — Ashkenazi Jews who fled their homeland of Austria during Hitler's Anschluss. It is for them that we say 'Never again.' I speak to you today on behalf of relatives on my father's side, who are not living, but dying, under the occupation of this administration's deadly foray in Iraq. From the lack of security to the lack of basic supplies to the lack of electricity to the lack of potable water to the lack of jobs to the lack of reconstruction to the lack of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are much worse off now than before we invaded. 'Never again' should apply to them, too."

"Obama is a war criminal" Irish Parliament speaks up. Clare Daly.

http://youtu.be/beano3ecXTY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition

http://nojustice-nopeace.blogspot.com/

http://pgportal.gov.in/grm.aspx

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201108/riots-no-justice-no-peace

http://www.baltimoremagazine.net/people/2013/03/no-justice-no-peace

By petitioner pro se, in forma pauperis on 2013 07 12, 5:27 am CDT

In all communication, there are issues of effectiveness. I do not think the right to petition for redress of grievances in this country is a hollow one. People whose problems include being fundamentally nuts, and so, limited in their communicative abilities, may see it so, but primarily as a result of their distorted perception.

Note that the right follows and is coupled with the right to peaceably assemble. The notion is that when people invoke it, they need to do so in a civil manner, and not in arms againstthe state nor as a demand linked to threats of violence.

Terrorists who come against the state and the public in violence have really elected to put their faith in that strategy rather than the right to be heard on a civil prayer for redress as the Bill of Rights contemplates. People who indulge the mantra, "No justice. No peace" are essentially saying, "Kow tow to my demands, or I will engage in violence against the public in an effort to enforce my views." This is not a request to be heard on grievances, it is a threat of violence. The weak-minded primitives who resort to it should not be surprised when the state reacts accordingly.

By B. McLeod on 2013 07 12, 6:37 am CDT

No one mentioned violence but you, McLoud.

Shame and embarrassment are effective non-violent weapons against entrenched power.

I suppose you think the grievances of Africans brought to America as slaves beginning in 1619 "include being fundamentally nuts, and so, limited in their communicative abilities, may see it so, but primarily as a result of their distorted perception."

"Note that the right follows and is coupled with the right to peaceably assemble. The notion is that when people invoke it, they need to do so in a civil manner, and not in arms against the state nor as a demand linked to threats of violence."

Hey McLoud, have you heard of The Civil War (1861-1865)? BTW, it was not very civil.

Lets do the math McLoud. 1619 to The Civil Rights Act of 1964: 345 years.

I could present other examples, like the American Revolution. Why didn’t those darn colonist just use the British system to redress their grievances? After all, England is the birthplace of the Magna Carta.

"Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges." The operative word is "forced" onto a King of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Power never cedes without a demand. A demand without consequences is just so much hot air - kinda like McLoud.

Listen carefully McLoud to these two fine ladies, they may enlighten you:

Dahlia Wasfi, "No Justice No Peace" http://youtu.be/SLolNj48IP8

Clare Daly, Irish Parliamentarian, "Obama is a war criminal" http://youtu.be/beano3ecXTY

Neither lady advocated violence. They merely speak truth to power.

No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.

I command you, McLoud, not to think about this for the rest of the day.

By petitioner pro se, in forma pauperis on 2013 07 12, 1:33 pm CDT

I sense that you will always be in forma pauperis. Among other things.

By B. McLeod on 2013 07 12, 11:56 pm CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.