MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
One for the White House: NSA program keeping phone call records is 'lawful'
A federal judge ruled that a National Security Agency program that collects records of millions of Americans' phone calls is lawful, calling it a “counter-punch” to terrorism that does not violate Americans' privacy rights. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“In a 54-page decision, Pauley dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit contending that the NSA collection of “bulk telephony metadata” violated the bar against warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.”
Dec 29th, 2013 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0It took him 54 pages to strike down the 4th amendment.
I think we may be looking at the next member of the SCOTUS.
*Of course* this Leon judgement breaks the Constitution.
Dec 29th, 2013 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Leon is indulging in Orwellian DoubleSpeak.
This is only important if the people of the USA still hold any value in the Constitution - if they believe that it has outlived its time then it matters not one jot if it is broken every day and in every way.
If the believe they should have a constitution but the present one is redundant in contemporary society - then don't just fiddle with new amendments, write a new one.
But one thing's for sure: 'we spy here and everywhere else because we have the technology' is no way to run a country ... and to say we do it 'in the defence of the people' is just so disingenuous.
It is akin to saying
'we saw a dog pee without permission in Central Park, so now all dogs everywhere must wear GPS trackers so we know which one to prosecute. We do this to defend you, the US People and the American Way Of Life'
Whilst I sort of understand the points being made, should we not consider that killing 2,977 innocent people and injuring more than 6,000 others is a “circumstance” that justifies “appropriate” measures? There might also be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to take into account.
Dec 29th, 2013 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Besides, one way that courts enforce the Fourth Amendment is by excluding evidence obtained through its violation. But I doubt that the NSA actually intends to prosecute anyone. More a case of identifying potential suspects.
We really do admire your artificial concerns of the American peoples constitutional rights, suffice it to say, they are fairly adapt at handling these things. And, if it is not a concern, don't post or do post and continue to show your ignorance as an Uruguayan. You truly do not comprehend that change is a process even when something may or may not violate our constitution.
Dec 29th, 2013 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Though I am waiting with bated breath for the onslaught of responses from all your participants of your vomitorium. After all, you do know everything on every subject. The Jack of all trades and the master of them all as well. Unless you forget to qualify your rants with an opinion disclaimer?
Sorry, guys.
Dec 29th, 2013 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Leon is the good guy, Pauley is the politician.
My mistake.
Much of world-democracy relies on the benchmark set by the US Constitution, so when they screw-up big time, the whole world suffers.
NSA still has not shown any proof or statistics proving that their spying is actually stopping terrorists.
Dec 29th, 2013 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pauley says it is legal to spy on US citizens, then what about the rest of the world?
#6
Dec 29th, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It has been said many times that it is perfectly in order for the NSA to spy on any non-US citizen from the most poor to the highest in the lands.
Obama may be outwardly dismayed (as well he might be!) but his guys will, with alacrity, authority or 'plausible deniability', spy on the Pope (!) with as much gusto as they would spy on Putin himself.
As the American song says, “Anything Goes”
... The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today, ...
... and, as I said, much of world-democracy relies on the benchmark set by the US Constitution, so when they screw-up maximally - as revealed by Snowden, the whole world suffers.
One for the White House: NSA program keeping phone call records is 'lawful'
Dec 30th, 2013 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0All in the name of “SECURITY”!
“Fascism will come to United States of America in the name of anti-fascism'. I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to US in the name of national security.” Sen. Huey Long.
I witness that he is right while the majorit is still asleep (dancing with the stars, NFL, work many hours and come late home)
It's “lawful” because it's in the NDAA (signed on new years eve 2012) while everybody was partying plus it's in the Patriot Act and extended version. BOTH are 100% against the constitution but they don't give a damn.
“... and, as I said, much of world-democracy relies on the benchmark set by the US Constitution, so when they screw-up maximally - as revealed by Snowden, the whole world suffers.”
About the benchmark you are correct, because for example, the current Brazilian constitution of 1988, is for 99% (it does not have the 2nd amendment, though you have the right to protect yourself, include with a firearm if you qualify for the rules that apply to get a permit) of the US constitution. The otherside is, the US is not the world, so if they screw up (what's already happening in front of my eyes) the rest of world will feel the affects, but eventually adapt and move on, which is already happening. Second, you don't want to live in a democracy, you want to live in a REPUBLIC. Learn the differences. Brazil, by law a Constitutional Republic, behaves more as a Constitutional Republic and a capitalist compare to the United States which suppose to be a Constitutional Republic and the numero UNO capitalist nation on earth according to it's constitution but sadly in reality is the opposite already, according to the following definition: Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and (FINANCIAL) corporate power.” ..Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy is laughing out loud.
Thanks for the reply Fido, but
Dec 30th, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most Republics attempt to operate within a framework of 'Democracy'.
Even Plato's Republic validated Democracy in Ch. 8-10, where he discusses the pros and cons of various practical forms of governance.
But everything gets manipulated by the power-seeking despots, such that Chavez' rule claimed the authority of 'democracy',
and some of the worst dictatorships use the tag 'democratic republic' to dilute the true worth of the word 'democracy' whilst, at the same time, using the word for their own 'international legitimacy'.
@4 Talking to anybody in particular? How do you start a letter? Don't you usually address SOMEONE. Then why don't you do the same here? Some sort of courtesy block? Or are you just ignorant? All around the world, there are acceptable customs. Doesn't the U.S. have any? There are some really good Americans. I have a really special friend living in the Metroplex. And others in upstate New York and Arizona. The rest need to prove themselves. I remember going to the States one year and listening to some dumb yank female. Thick as two short planks cut in half. Remember yanks at the UK border. “Which way do Americans go”? Same way as other foreigners, divot!
Dec 30th, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 10 Conqueror
Dec 30th, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Talking to anybody in particular? How do you start a letter? Don't you usually address SOMEONE.”
Oh, dear! You are not suggesting that the guy with the “broad brush” starts using a pencil AND thinking what he wants to rant are you?
You will be as well thought of by him as he thinks of me!
Still, you will care about as much as me I imagine?
You are probably correct in my not addressing whom I was speaking to. And who was it for you adressing in # 3?
Dec 30th, 2013 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 03 Conqueror (#)
Dec 29th, 2013 - 02:16 pm
Report abuse
Whilst I sort of understand the points being made, should we not consider that killing 2,977 innocent people and injuring more than 6,000 others is a “circumstance” that justifies “appropriate” measures? There might also be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to take into account.
Besides, one way that courts enforce the Fourth Amendment is by excluding evidence obtained through its violation. But I doubt that the NSA actually intends to prosecute anyone. More a case of identifying potential suspects.
Do you have a exemption from addressing whom you speak to?
When you are in your pulpit, try practicing your preaching.
chris.....be a man of you word, you promised you were not going to respond to me. Deep down you have integrity somewhere, unless it drowned in the ego.....to even remotely believe I think of you, good or bad, would be to assume that I have some sort of contempt of you, to which I have never the energy nor desire to waste a thought, regardless of how miniscule it would be, displaying contempt of you.
Though I will say at 67, I do show respect to the elderly when I do encounter them in life.
BTW chrissy.........you prefer kiddie fiddler was it? My preference is pedophile engineer or skinner.....I can't decide.
@5 Sorry, but much of world democracy relies on the benchmarks set by the British democratic and parliamentary systems. Even that of the United States. Research demonstrates that the “United States” simply adopted and then amended British practices. It is not for nothing that the UK Parliament is referred to as the “Mother of Parliaments”. The “U.S. Constitution is ”second-string“.
Dec 31st, 2013 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 What? If the Captain is going to fume at somebody, isn't it reasonable to indicate who he's fuming at? Where did you get the ”broad brush“?
@12 Trouble with ”concepts“? Can you recognise that ”your“ post @4 used the word ”your“. In my post @3 all I used was ”I“ and ”we“. Therefore I addressed ”all“ or simply floated a general comment. I have to admit that I may enjoy an unfair advantage. English is my native language. What's yours? Is ”Poppy“ significant? Have I addressed the indignation you felt when you realised that I was right and you are wrong? And that someone ”dared“ challenge you? The English language originated where I live. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, and others, all use bastardised versions. Not their ”fault“. For example, U.S. English ”speakers“ are lazy. It's ”grey“, not ”gray“. It's ”underpants“, not ”shorts“. It's ”trousers“, not ”pants“. It's not a ”check“, it's a ”cheque“. It's not a ”cookie“, it's a ”biscuit”.
But the big question is, who's on the same side? And who likes clarity? And, while we're at it, which nerds can't take polite criticism?
@ Guess Who?
Dec 31st, 2013 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really?
Ha, ha, ha.
#13
Dec 31st, 2013 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We all stand corrected conqueror and stare in awe.
As for your question of concepts, I have no trouble with you at all.
Hi Conq.
Dec 31st, 2013 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our British unwritten constitution is piss-poor for setting the standard ... because its not written down.
The US Constitution is simple, brief and clear; it served their needs in their embryonic democracy - less so, now.
It can be copied and used as a model by other nations.
What we gave to much of the world was a set of mechanisms that countries could adopt to move to a more democratic governance.
It saddens me that many of these nations of Empire have reverted to (democratically-validated) dictatorships and the corrupt power exerted by the 'strong-man' of the day.
“democratically validated dictatorships”
Dec 31st, 2013 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems some societies do elect for this to happen. I think Argentina did this. I also think the U.S. is doing this too.
Can you give an example or two of countries whose governments you think have succumbed to this? And what activity thereof marks them as a de facto dictatorship?
Venezuela and “ruling by decree” might be an example.
Hi, BP@17.
Jan 01st, 2014 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well ...
any country that 'manipulates' the democratic voting process to the president's own advantage;
countries that eliminate opposition;
countries that destroy the freedoms of the press when it attempts to 'show things as they really are';
countries that 'buy' votes, usually from the numerous poor;
yes, and countries that rule by decree.
I guess its a case of which countries do NOT do this rather than 'give examples of two that don't'.
Perhaps the democracy of Plato is an aspiration - when faced with the desire of powerful humans to win and hold on to power, to gain personal riches, and to CONTROL the population.
The behavioural 'Value' known as Universalism attempts to fight against these 'bad' behaviours and to minimise their impacts on society;
but, more frequently, POWER and CONTROL are stronger.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!