It is ironic that the Congress is always all too willing to draft and send our young men to foreign wars to protect freedom around the world but are willing to secretly sacrifice our constitutional freedoms in the USA rather than risk one civilian or military death from a terrorist.
2
@Mark Pope: "... Congress is always all too willing to draft and send our young men to foreign wars ..."
The US does not have a draft, and women can serve in the US military. You should acknowledge that the US military is an *all-volunteer* force before looking for ironies.
The US does not have a draft, and women can serve in the US military. You should acknowledge that the US military is an *all-volunteer* force before looking for ironies.
We have met the enemy and they are us. Snowden, etc., need to be found and prosecuted. Google has more information on us than the government. If you are against our government gathering information, invite the terrorists to YOUR home. I have nothing to hide.
The Walt Kelly-Pogo motto, coined during the anti'Communist witch-hunt to point out that the super-patriots were doing this country far more damage than a legion of Soviet spies ever could, is odd and inapt as a blazon for the same sort of exaggerated fear-mongering you engage in in the rest of this brief but incoherent message. However much information Google has on you, it doesn't have spooks to harass you, or secret courts to drag you in front of. You may think you have nothing to hide, but wait until you draw the attention of some agency thug who needs to fill his quota of suspicious characters, and see what paranoid fantasy he or she can foist onto your innocent activities. Perhaps you just drew their attention by writing about inviting terrorists into your home! Who knows what list you just put yourself on.
1
@bern La La Land: "I have nothing to hide."
If you believe that, you haven't looked very hard. How about your social security number or your tax return or your political affiliations or your sexual preferences?
If you believe that, you haven't looked very hard. How about your social security number or your tax return or your political affiliations or your sexual preferences?
2
Government insiders, including President Obama, are surely exposed to constant secret information purporting to document a steady supply of would-be terrorists planning attacks of one sort or another. These reports, which the public rarely sees, are designed by their perpetrators to alarm insiders and thus to justify the activities and budgets of our myriad security agencies. They are overstated, if not entirely bogus - either imaginary or the result of agents provocateurs, as in a recent FBI sting operation that apparently pushed some harmless Muslim into making radical statements that got him arrested and charged. In this climate, it is hard for Obama not to join the group-think of his administration and begin to see bombers under every bed. He fears, above all, some terrorist plot actually succeeding, for which he would be blamed, and is willing to sacrifice our freedoms against that possibility. Thus the surveillance state gets its claws ever deeper into the body politic.
1
In the world of professional nosy bodies, data mining is perhaps the most prodigiously used form of getting info on every detail of personal information. So..What personal information is really and actually needed? Which isn't. I do not view Snowden as anything more than an arrogant, belligerent snoop with a back room "I'll show you" little boy attitude who wants to "get even." Any fool who thinks what he did is fine and dandy and then in the same breath declares governmental data mining to be unconstitutional is only saying...it's okay for a nosy body like Snowden to go poking around in classified information in government but you can bet your boodles he would dare do this to any corporation. One question remains...who in the biggest military industry corporations needed Snowden to poke his nose in?
1
As you could learn in any decent college course on rhetoric and logic, invective is not a convincing argument, and in fact reflects badly on the person who uses it, rather than on the person it's aimed at. In other words: Sticks and stones may break his bones, but words will never hurt him.
1
Not to be a downer but a reality check is in order: the U.S. court system is no engine these days of protecting freedom. The Court didn't say bulk collection was unconstitutional. They merely invoked the evasive doctrine of constitutional avoidance and then threw it back to the lower court and Congress (auy!) to do something about it. So, basically it passed the buck and left the public with no greater constitutional protection than it had before. We will be left with a rhetorically humming but ultimately toothless so-called USA Freedom Act, which will not sufficiently roll back the outrageous trampling of the 4th amendment by the NSA and the whole intelligence "community" after 9/11. Ho hum, it's good for Snowden, who deserves nothing but the highest praise, and the rest of us until the next piece of unconstitutional legislation comes around and the ACLU brings the next case, or the right-wing Supreme Court finally shuts the whole thing down. It will take more than the Courts to get the country out from under the terror psychosis that has plagued it since the government has been free to characterize the world political situation as a war on terror. Say the 2d Circuit: "Perhaps such a contraction is required by national security needs in the face of the dangers of contemporary domestic and international terrorism." You see what I mean. Contemptible.
2
After reading this article my only thoughts are, why are the courts wasting thier time on this issue if they are not going to take any action to enforce it. I personally don't believe that there is one single person in America, unless they are brain dead, that is not aware that the majority of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. For some reason, many American's seem to believe that it is necesarry to throw the constitution in the trash to combat terrorism. Maybe so, but in light of all the financial problems our country is suffering, is it not stupid to spend money we don't have to argue cases that the appeals court will not enforce?
1
This supports that move that Edward Snowden took. I believe he's no traitor, but a patriot who gave up his freedom for ours.
2
No doubt NSA will obey the law...
1
So what happens with the new, state of the art multi billion dollar NSA data collection center in Utah? Shut it down? Sell it to the Chinese? Convert to a call center? More government waste sadly.
This crime is so big that no one is going to jail just like th bank bailout/grand theft
1
Now if we can just get American voters to care as much about this cheating as they care about Tom Brady's cheating, we might have a chance to remain a free people.
1
Yes, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning should be rewarded for their courage in showing us how our government does not work to protect us.
2
Edward Snowden is a Daniel Ellsberg for the 21st century.
Even more so in a way, because Snowden's revelation told us more about what we didn't know than Ellsberg's did
Even more so in a way, because Snowden's revelation told us more about what we didn't know than Ellsberg's did
1
Thank you, Edward Snowden. Now will our "leaders" let him come home? He obviously blew the whistle on this illegality.
2
This is the program that Obama confidently stated was perfectly in order when the public learned of then. He began back tracking and and equivocating and it became patently clear how little he cared about candor when speaking with the American public. This court decision is welcome vindication for those who realized how little we can trust this administration to adhere to its avowed standards.
1
"The ruling puts new pressure on Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, to make serious changes to the Patriot Act, which he has so far aggressively defended against any alteration, even as recently as Thursday on the Senate floor. Mr. McConnell has pressed to maintain the N.S.A.’s existing program against bipartisan efforts to scale it back, and has proposed simply extending the statute by the June 1 deadline."
As my birthday present they can just can the whole Patriot Act which is illegal anyways.
As my birthday present they can just can the whole Patriot Act which is illegal anyways.
2
Don't fear the government fear God...a fallible government can only control so much...god controls the afterlife.
What's changed, not the Program(s)?
Why rule it's UnCONstitutional Now; surely this isn't the first case?
So allllll those Law Makers were endorsing Law Breaking???:):)
BTW Snowden isn't a hero to me.
He didn't expose his government to the people, for if you didn't KNOW the government was doing this; you're either very uninformed, very naive, or young,....he betrayed our government to our enemies.
There's other options he could've utilized; he chose the most destructive.
Why rule it's UnCONstitutional Now; surely this isn't the first case?
So allllll those Law Makers were endorsing Law Breaking???:):)
BTW Snowden isn't a hero to me.
He didn't expose his government to the people, for if you didn't KNOW the government was doing this; you're either very uninformed, very naive, or young,....he betrayed our government to our enemies.
There's other options he could've utilized; he chose the most destructive.
1
Finally Mr Snowden was recognized and debunked the Patriot Act,.
1
>
Do not be fooled! They'll figure out a way to wiggle through this little obstacle, and most of the American people will agree with it.
The Peepers never give up their quest, as Horkheimer and Adorno pointed out long ago: "To dominate nature boundlessly, to turn the entire cosmos into an endless hunting ground, has been the dream of millennia."
Do not be fooled! They'll figure out a way to wiggle through this little obstacle, and most of the American people will agree with it.
The Peepers never give up their quest, as Horkheimer and Adorno pointed out long ago: "To dominate nature boundlessly, to turn the entire cosmos into an endless hunting ground, has been the dream of millennia."
3
Federal regulations (47 CFR 42.6) stipulates that telephone companies must retain telephone billing data for a minimum of 18 months. The exact wording of the regulation is as follows:
"Each carrier that offers or bills toll telephone service shall retain for a period of 18 months such records as are necessary to provide the following billing information about telephone toll calls: the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call. Each carrier shall retain this information for toll calls that it bills whether it is billing its own toll service customers for toll calls or billing customers for another carrier."
"Each carrier that offers or bills toll telephone service shall retain for a period of 18 months such records as are necessary to provide the following billing information about telephone toll calls: the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call. Each carrier shall retain this information for toll calls that it bills whether it is billing its own toll service customers for toll calls or billing customers for another carrier."
Who invented the Time Machine to take us back 14yrs to Start the Debate over the Patriot Act?
I take it those of us that were (Always) Against it (it's unnecessary) won't hear "You're for the Terrorists", "Traitors",...this time around:)?
Think back to that fateful day after the attacks,..by the time the early news reports came out, they name the attackers, where they were from, when they got here, how long they've been here,...
How would a PAct improve all the info released just hours after the attacks?
Not to mention, if you watched the hearings, read the reports, our agencies HAD the attackers on their radar, just didn't follow-up on the info/leads they had.
I take it those of us that were (Always) Against it (it's unnecessary) won't hear "You're for the Terrorists", "Traitors",...this time around:)?
Think back to that fateful day after the attacks,..by the time the early news reports came out, they name the attackers, where they were from, when they got here, how long they've been here,...
How would a PAct improve all the info released just hours after the attacks?
Not to mention, if you watched the hearings, read the reports, our agencies HAD the attackers on their radar, just didn't follow-up on the info/leads they had.
1
What Grace doesn't seem to understand - and lots of people don't - is that the metadata (the call records) - is necessary in order to make your calls (cellphone or wireline) go through. The NSA collecting that stuff in bulk is terrible, yes, but it's not out of the question in order to find out what number called what number. The "metadata" is necessary to get one end of the call completed to the other end. It's one of the reasons why you can see if it's Syria calling or one of your friends or some number you don't even recognize. The collection of that data in order to find terrorists is necessary. It's not pretty, and yes, it is a kind of spying on the fine citizens of our democracy, but it may be necessary.
1
This method of gathering intelligence seems almost childish. It assumes that terrorists will be using a set vocabulary or keywords to plan attacks. Most of the keywords were common knowledge early on. Drug dealers and organized crime teams switched to generic terms decades ago. And, with the releases of the keywords, terrorists and hackers were able to flood the data files with phony "hits." It would have been a good idea, if it wasn't so easy to get around or clog with false hits.
Not sure if you are law abiding why anyone would care if te NSA has this Data. I could care less. I can see why terrorist wouldn't what the NSA to collect this data. So in an age when people fly airliners into buildings we need to get over things like this so the government can track down these animals before they act again.
1
Perfume Mr Edward Snowden to creat the flag I support Snowden Thank you
I love how the author likes to lay blame on Mitch McConnell. However, McConnell is not the president.
With executive order alone, President Obama can put an end to this. Of course, he has not. He's busy putting in executive orders allowing undocumented illegal aliens the right to jump the line ahead of law abiding applicants for US citizenship or green cards.
With executive order alone, President Obama can put an end to this. Of course, he has not. He's busy putting in executive orders allowing undocumented illegal aliens the right to jump the line ahead of law abiding applicants for US citizenship or green cards.
Welcome to America, World!!! Where only laws ruled to be "Illegal & Unconstitutional" by our Judiciary Court System's are actually brutually & violently enforced upon our fellow citizens by, the (United Nations Coalition Forces) which our U.S. Constitutional Laws absolutely forbids and interpreted it as an (Declaration Of War) by an Foreign Nation! And legally any person whom had knowledge about it, or participated, or heard anything whatsoever, whether fact, or fiction related to this still currently ongoing (Illegal Foreign Military Invasion & Occupation) but fails, or failed to report it to the U.S. Government will be immediately arrested, and brought up on charge of Tyranny which via punishable by Death in all 50 states! SMH!!!
I can only second what others have said: it is time for the U.S. to offer an unconditional pardon to Edward Snowden (if not an actual apology), and allow him to come home and live a normal life here in the U.S.
2
Contrast "an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans" with the expectation of all Americans that there will not be another 9/11. Good luck striking a balance between the two.
Here in Oregon, Senator Wyden and Rep. Blumenauer just voted to stab our workers and environment in the back, i.e., to fast-track the Trans Pacific trade agreement. I'd be happy to replace either one of them with Edward Snowden. We don't need a ticker-tape parade for him--we need him in a job where he can do even more good for this country than he has already done.
2
I'm aware, this is high sensible stuff for US citizens. But sorry, Edward Snowden did right. However, it's not even worth to throw over this. In fact, not Snowden was the traitor, the NSA was. This is sadly analogous to the reality of your current domestic political situation, actually. No offence meant.
To the fine citizens of Kentucky:
Please elect Mitch McConnell as your governor and get him out of my private life. He is dangerous as a senator. If you love him so much please keep him at home where I am sure he will fight for ALL Kentuckians.
Please elect Mitch McConnell as your governor and get him out of my private life. He is dangerous as a senator. If you love him so much please keep him at home where I am sure he will fight for ALL Kentuckians.
11
What the corporate world knows about you makes what the NSA was doing seem like a pin hole. And the corporate knowledge is personal right down to what you searched, bought, where you bought it, who you called, what you said, how long did you talk...and if you were in a car when you called...for beginners. And you furnish that information willingly. The NSA wants your safety. The corporate world wants your money.
So true. But the corporate world only gets the money if I want them to and I choose not to give it to them.
The NSA collects information that can ruin a person's life if it is mistaken in the analysis of the information.
The NSA collects information that can ruin a person's life if it is mistaken in the analysis of the information.
2
Are you really so naive that you do not realize that in our new Big Brother world that what a corporation knows, the NSA knows as well. Additionally, corporations want my money, as you rightly state, but who knows what the bureaucracy at the NSA may want of me - right down to my life and reputation. Beware of those who only want what is best for you, when it is "they" rather than you that decides what is "best."
1
Corporations do not have policing powers.
Safety is just an excuse for you to give away your rights.
Safety is just an excuse for you to give away your rights.
1
I don't think I want the phone companies amassing this data either.
9
Sen. McConnell ~ “Section 215 helps us find a needle in the haystack,” he said. “But under the U.S.A. Freedom Act, there might not be a haystack at all.”
If there's no haystack, finding the needle should be that much easier.
If there's no haystack, finding the needle should be that much easier.
6
Does this mean Edward Snowden is eligible for protection under the Whistle Blower Act? The courts just agreed it was an illegal activity, which he exposed.
12
He could not get a fair trial in the USA. Bradley Manning did not, Assange would not if they get him here, and Snowden would not because he is charged under the Espionage Act that would allow a secret kangaroo court. The kind that the USG condemns in other countries, but practices here.
13
Hello? Hello?? Hello??? um, the phone companies have this data, they collect it, they sift it and the sell it to advertisers. All things considered, I'd rather the government had it too.
2
You're ok now, until they use your information against you. What if you are trying to unionize your work place? Or to organize a new political party? And get bagged because of suspicious behavior that is beneficial to the people but would change the status quo?
11
Steve, That's true and that's how the ball got rolling on the government getting involved. I have no problem with the government doing the same thing as private; I just don't like how they made it so secretive, ushered it in under the umbrella of an unnecessary PAct and how they basically "Scared" the Phone Companies into cooperating?
If the Government wants to/has to,..do this, why does it need to be "Secretive"????
If the Government wants to/has to,..do this, why does it need to be "Secretive"????
1
Mona,
Some are blind, and then others are willfully blind.
The second group resent being educated.
Some are blind, and then others are willfully blind.
The second group resent being educated.
1
Why do we have to wait for the courts? Didn't President Obama promise he was going to put an end to all of this? Why didn't the Democrats repeal the Patriot Act when they had a chance? Why did President Obama, instead, have all restriction on NSA spying lifted in 2011?
7
When did the POTUS claim he'd put an end to this?? Surely you have full quote supporting that statement?
"President" Obama, is simply the tool and the conduit for the corporate owners of the United States, to maintain control of the masses.
Think about the ruling for a minute; immediately after the courts legal finding that the surveillance was illegal, the President should have ordered all agencies to cease and desist with this illegal activity.
Inasmuch as he didn't, this means that right now, our government is overtly engaged in breaking the law as found by the court, consequently he can and should be arrested along with his co-conspirators.
Think about the ruling for a minute; immediately after the courts legal finding that the surveillance was illegal, the President should have ordered all agencies to cease and desist with this illegal activity.
Inasmuch as he didn't, this means that right now, our government is overtly engaged in breaking the law as found by the court, consequently he can and should be arrested along with his co-conspirators.
1
Congress couldn't even pass a piece of legislation to keep the government working. While I have little faith in Democrats doing the right thing, I can't even imagine the brobingnagian kerfuffle that would have ensued if the Dems had actually tried to mess with the Patriot Act.
1
On the one hand, people need peace and expect the government to keep them safe. They feel, government should prevent any terrorist act. They expect the government to be one step ahead of the death mongers and spoil all their plans. But how do they expect all this to happen? Terrorists no longer come from Middle East or Pakistan. Organizations like ISIS and Al Queda are using internet to their best advantage and brainwashing native people. Europe is afraid of terrorists, not from outside their continent, but their own, misguided citizens. The same is with the U.S. That being the case, the government has every right to snoop. Why should honest citizens be afraid of it? Of course, problem will arise when the government reveals personal details of citizens to the outside world. So long as government keeps it confidential, there should be no problem, if the government hears your conversation.
1
It should be noted by all that the court did not hold that the collection of metadata from the phone companies violated any one's constitutional rights. It didn't even say that it violated any law on the books. All it said is that the collection of such data is not authorized by the Patriot Act and therefore the NSA has no power to collect it.
In similar circumstances the courts have often held that the President has the inherent right to interpret statutes and the power that those statutes give him and his interpretation should be granted great deference. And tat would seem to be appropriate here where we are dealing with a question of national security and a majority of both houses of Congress agree with his interpretation so that the only thing that will prevent the Congress from specifically authorizing the current program is a filibuster in the Senate.
In similar circumstances the courts have often held that the President has the inherent right to interpret statutes and the power that those statutes give him and his interpretation should be granted great deference. And tat would seem to be appropriate here where we are dealing with a question of national security and a majority of both houses of Congress agree with his interpretation so that the only thing that will prevent the Congress from specifically authorizing the current program is a filibuster in the Senate.
1
By re-imagining the definitions of words previously understood to mean one thing and now to convey something else entirely, the US government has implemented a secret mass surveillance program. So far, there is very little dispute about that. Despite public admissions (more or less) pertaining to the futility (or perhaps lack of utility) of 215 and other word-smithed sections of the Patriot Act (at least for their ostensible purposes), segments of the government and the surveillance-security apparatus continue to insist on their theoretical if not their practical utility.
The question now is this: Since the entire affair was made public by Edward Snowden and the Second Circuit has ruled the practice(s) illegal, what will happen now? My guess is a bit of tinkering around the margins and the program will continue under a "new and improved" title yielding the same warrantless searches; business as usual and justified to the public using standard fear-mongering methods.
The question now is this: Since the entire affair was made public by Edward Snowden and the Second Circuit has ruled the practice(s) illegal, what will happen now? My guess is a bit of tinkering around the margins and the program will continue under a "new and improved" title yielding the same warrantless searches; business as usual and justified to the public using standard fear-mongering methods.
7
What information does the NSA collect that you don't provide the corporate world, and anyone else interested, every time you use your smart phone, computer or any of a number of other tech devises? Even inside the home many have technology that allows others to track what you and your family is doing? And we are in headlong pursuit of increasing the interconnection including with your car moving you around without your participation. Beware? Sure. But of spreading your life story on the cloud for all to follow if they wish. How do you think you get all those targeted ads, etc.? It ain't the gvmnt.
1
The corporate world doesn't have police powers to come and lock you up, therein lies the difference.
1
Relax, civil libertarians. Read the decision. It only says that bulk meta-data collection goes beyond section 215 of the Patriot Act. It does not say that such collection is unconstitutional.
1
Repeal the Patriot Act, the "half measure" of letting Article 215 expire is not enough. We lost habeas corpus, among other Constitutional rights. Void the whole act.
Next, repeal or radically modify the National Security Act of 1947, which not only created the National Security Council (which begat the CIA, NSA, DIO, NRO, etc.) but removed these intelligence agencies from the control of any branch of government. The President can only appoint directors, not dictate operational actions, and Congress can only request testimony and briefings. Most of the budgets for these agencies are beyond the purview of the OMB, as they are "classified".
These actions will bring us back to a "non-Security State", one where government is visible, and more accountable to the citizens, not to itself.
Next, repeal or radically modify the National Security Act of 1947, which not only created the National Security Council (which begat the CIA, NSA, DIO, NRO, etc.) but removed these intelligence agencies from the control of any branch of government. The President can only appoint directors, not dictate operational actions, and Congress can only request testimony and briefings. Most of the budgets for these agencies are beyond the purview of the OMB, as they are "classified".
These actions will bring us back to a "non-Security State", one where government is visible, and more accountable to the citizens, not to itself.
10
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden! You are the true patriot willing to sacrifice yourself for your country. It is James Clapper, the NSA Director, who has continually lied to Congress and the American people who should face criminal charges. It is time for President Obama to rein in this unconstitutional program, and he should start by asking for Mr. Clapper's resignation.
17
"Ask for his resignation"
Not ask anything, fire the lying bum, and then arrest and charge him with violating the rights of millions of Americans, and internationally, he should also be charged with industrial espionage for ordering the NSA to break into the databases of numerous foreign corporations, to steal and sell to competitors, proprietary corporate secrets.
The Petrobras break in comes to mind, one of the first revelations, wherein it was discovered the NSA was attempting to steal proprietary deep well drilling technology, and resell to one or more of their clients.
We need to put a stop immediately to all of the illegal acts these criminals are engaged in, acts that are ruining our reputation, worldwide, and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue as more and more nations choose to not use our corrupted businesses.
The world is watching and waiting for us to do the right thing.
Not ask anything, fire the lying bum, and then arrest and charge him with violating the rights of millions of Americans, and internationally, he should also be charged with industrial espionage for ordering the NSA to break into the databases of numerous foreign corporations, to steal and sell to competitors, proprietary corporate secrets.
The Petrobras break in comes to mind, one of the first revelations, wherein it was discovered the NSA was attempting to steal proprietary deep well drilling technology, and resell to one or more of their clients.
We need to put a stop immediately to all of the illegal acts these criminals are engaged in, acts that are ruining our reputation, worldwide, and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue as more and more nations choose to not use our corrupted businesses.
The world is watching and waiting for us to do the right thing.
5
We do not want a government that controls its citizens and spies on them behind closed doors, we want citizens to control and understand what government is doing. Protect our freedom to privacy.
10
Maybe you and I don't JoeB but I'm beginning to have a lot of doubt that there are very many like us. There are - even among the contributors to this comment section - those who can't tell the difference between a corporation and a government.
1
I also agree Edward Snowden is an American hero; I was stunned after reading Luke Harding's "The Snowden Files," which details how deeply the NSA has undercut our nation's freedom of expression and turned it into a virtual 1984-style police state. I am very disturbed by the usage of the term "collection of phone data." The NSA goes VERY much further in its data "collection;" all computer usage is also monitored; once the NSA decides an individual is a "target" (for simply communicating with others overseas, as I did in doing environmental work), they also focus upon the "target's" connections. They blocked much of what I was trying to send, and eventually crashed my computer so badly it was useless. When I purchased another, that computer was ALSO crashed via a Trojan horse they had left in my online bank account. Yes, they also get through all the security and encryption set up by banks, corporations, businesses . . . very innocent, non-violent persons and entities who are NOT "enemies of the state."
17
Will President Obama, the constitutional lawyer, comply with the court's ruling or treat it as any international treaty the U.S. has signed over the last 200 years and ignore it at his discretion?
5
The Bush administration decided, in secret, without seeking congressional approval or authorization from a federal court that all digital communications could be considered part of a national security case because, they believed, all Americans were potentially threats to our national security. The Obama administration agreed with them and expanded the program.
Laughably long-overdue, the appeals court has finally weighed in, but the impotence of that ruling is also laughable. The program is obviously illegal, they say, which means two consecutive Presidents have brazenly broken the law, yet they do not order that the program be terminated.
Thanks for your help, guys. Now, can you order that Edward Snowden be pardoned and given protection from criminal elements in our own government and intelligence agencies?
Laughably long-overdue, the appeals court has finally weighed in, but the impotence of that ruling is also laughable. The program is obviously illegal, they say, which means two consecutive Presidents have brazenly broken the law, yet they do not order that the program be terminated.
Thanks for your help, guys. Now, can you order that Edward Snowden be pardoned and given protection from criminal elements in our own government and intelligence agencies?
11
so can snowden come home now?
5
This will not end well for Americans. Washington is owned by big money. Obama has spent all of his tenure working to create the biggest Secret U.S. of A. There are billions at stake by large corporations that employ thousands of people that spend all of the working day spying on Americans. This is what drives McConnell, other elected Republicans, and some Democrats. They seek their space at the campaign-financing feeding trough. Corporate America was simply just too willing to accommodate the Bush administration, and then the Obama administration in allowing metadata collection without proper executive or judicial review. The current Washington feeding gluttons will have none of this demanded and necessary change. How is the metadata collection created by Bush and overly enhanced by Obama any different than the torture policies created by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and secretly continued by Obama) that no other civilized country on planet condones.
Edward Snowden is a patriot. All decent Americans thank you.
Edward Snowden is a patriot. All decent Americans thank you.
10
The PATRIOT Act - and much of the draconian surveillance activities that followed - were largely modeled on wishlists developed by right-wing think tanks in the mid to late 90s. After the 2001 attacks, they simply pulled these prepared programs off the shelf, fed them hundreds of billions of tax dollars, and radically ended the America we thought we once knew.
It means nothing that a court here or there declares this program, or that, illegal and unconstitutional. The power has been given; it will not be given back.
It means nothing that a court here or there declares this program, or that, illegal and unconstitutional. The power has been given; it will not be given back.
11
Power obtained by fraudulent means is power usurped, not power given.
6
Pardon Mr. Snowden, allow him to come home safely and without threat of prosecution, and give him our most profound thanks for the disclosures he made at great personal risk.
17
This is wonderful. But don't get carried away folks. The National Security State has a lot of options to shoulder this decision aside, and it has two powerful allies: the President and the Republican Party. So it's not over yet by a long shot.
10
The Republican Party is the members who elect the people in Washington. The majority of those members are against these abuses of the Patriot Act and many are busy writing them and calling their offices.
We need an appeals court to tell us this? Be afraid, people.
12
Be more afraid when there are no longer appeals.
Afraid ??
No, be angry, very angry ...
No, be angry, very angry ...
1
Conservatives have a couple of dilemmas here. Not just the "freedom" issue, but also since replacing this info will be best done by hiring thousands more undercover personnel which are in the long run, much more expensive, how much do their corporate backers REALLY want to keep "us" safe? After all, if a factory in Oshkosh is destroyed by a terror attack, they can always build another one in the Philipines or somewhere else in Asia with cheap labor. So why does "corporate America" really care if we all get blown up? Do they want to pay the cost of doing so?
1
There is no suspension of civil liberties that the GOP does not support.
10
Obama reauthorized the Patriot Act. He supports it.
8
Umm, Obama is a democrat.
1
Right. it's not only the GOP that supports it. It's about security and politics.
1
I have always had qualms signing on to Snowden's actions. People seem to think that his disclosures were limited to matters revealing surveillance that we now know consider illegal. But he is believed to have disclosed well over a million documents, many of which endanger folks working on legitimate missions. I guess the feeling is the good outweighs the bad. But the guy seems smart enough to distinguish the two and I don't understand why he didn't.
2
We have been living in a military police state ever since the Patriot Act.
Our government has been our greatest terrorists propagating fear all over the world.
Great crimes to humanity.
And here in the land Oz the curtain is being pulled back.
Everyday we can read in the paper another secret being revealed.
Lastest trade deal.....rush rush to hide more secrets.
We have entered a whole new paradigm.
If the nonsense continues more and more people everywhere in the world will continue to stand up and protest creating revolution.
A revolution of the people, for the people and by the people and this time the constitution WILL have equal rights for ALL.
Our global consciousness is awakening to the fact that we are free by nature.
No one is our boss and our source of choice is not out there but in here.
We are waking up to the fact that living in fear is unnatural.
Our government has been our greatest terrorists propagating fear all over the world.
Great crimes to humanity.
And here in the land Oz the curtain is being pulled back.
Everyday we can read in the paper another secret being revealed.
Lastest trade deal.....rush rush to hide more secrets.
We have entered a whole new paradigm.
If the nonsense continues more and more people everywhere in the world will continue to stand up and protest creating revolution.
A revolution of the people, for the people and by the people and this time the constitution WILL have equal rights for ALL.
Our global consciousness is awakening to the fact that we are free by nature.
No one is our boss and our source of choice is not out there but in here.
We are waking up to the fact that living in fear is unnatural.
11
We need at least 200 million Americans thinking, and speaking, as you just did.
Only then will our government realize who they should be serving.
Methinks it will be a very long time before people develop the gumption to throw the bums out, if ever.
Only then will our government realize who they should be serving.
Methinks it will be a very long time before people develop the gumption to throw the bums out, if ever.
4
There needs to be a law banning nick names for bills (and by default Laws). There never should have been at U.S.A. Patriot Act unless it was simply referred to as U.S.C. sections 18 USC §2712, 31 USC §5318A, 15 USC §1681v, 8 USC §1226A, 18 USC §1993, 18 USC §2339, 18 USC §175b, 50 USC §403-5b, 51 USC §5103a. No drama. Just the facts. Vote it up or down based on its contents not the emotional appeal of a slick title.
11
I'd bet a nickel that they will find a way to continue doing this. The ruling will be an inconvenience to be gotten around, not something that means stop. The rationale will be that they have to use all means possible to protect America even if it means jailing and harassing innocent people. When it comes to terrorism the NSA probably feels there is no such thing as an innocent person. I never thought the day would come when I'd be more afraid of having nothing to bargain with but it has. The Patriot Act gave our government the right to lock us up with no one knowing, investigate us, tell us but leave us unable to defend ourselves or tell anyone what is going on, and if anyone thinks that because any part of the act or anything associated with it will stop occurring, think again. It won't. It'll just burrow further underground.
6
The visible world of our jurisprudence system has rightfully declared the bulk collection of phone calls by American citizens is illegal. The American Public is now watching. The pressure is on President Obama and Congress to demonstrate that our government is subject to the rule of law. How they respond to this decision will answer the question whether or not their sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution is a ritual of vacuous words or a necessary condition of taking office.
If President Obama faithfully executes the law and discontinues the illegal program then he owes an apology to Eric Snowden for branding him a fugitive from justice and should grant him a full pardon with back pay for demonstrating the highest form of patriotism. The judicial system must hear arguments whether an employee paid by the government can be contractually bound from revealing government violations of the constitution or duly enacted laws by Congress.
Three Huzzahs for Eric Snowden!
If President Obama faithfully executes the law and discontinues the illegal program then he owes an apology to Eric Snowden for branding him a fugitive from justice and should grant him a full pardon with back pay for demonstrating the highest form of patriotism. The judicial system must hear arguments whether an employee paid by the government can be contractually bound from revealing government violations of the constitution or duly enacted laws by Congress.
Three Huzzahs for Eric Snowden!
11
His name is Edward.
3
Re: " 'Section 215 helps us find a needle in the haystack,” he [Republican Mitch McConnell] said. 'But under the U.S.A. Freedom Act, there might not be a haystack at all.' "
Amazing. He's lamenting not being allowed to look for a needle in the haystack and actually framing his complaint directly in terms of this simile. Does he really not understand what the phrase "like looking for a needle in a haystack" means? Obviously (that is, obviously to everyone except apparently McConnell), it means attempting the impossible. The haystack is a worthless, and clearly McConnell is not intellectually competent to serve in the United States Senate.
Amazing. He's lamenting not being allowed to look for a needle in the haystack and actually framing his complaint directly in terms of this simile. Does he really not understand what the phrase "like looking for a needle in a haystack" means? Obviously (that is, obviously to everyone except apparently McConnell), it means attempting the impossible. The haystack is a worthless, and clearly McConnell is not intellectually competent to serve in the United States Senate.
7
This court ruling might matter, if I thought the NSA would comply with the law.
Except I don't believe that at all about my government....
Except I don't believe that at all about my government....
5
I really doubt the court ruling on the mass collection of phone data will matter. They ruled it illegal but did not order an injunction. This is all a game. Why would they bother even ruling if they aren't going to order it ceased? I guess they figure we'll celebrate for 15 minutes and turn our attention to something else. They are probably right.
1
So if the collection of phone data is illegal, who's going to prison for violating the law? Who is being held accountable? Who is going to pay the price? Talk is cheap. We need action! I want to see guilty parties in shackles, in court, and behind bars.
14
You will never, ever see any one of these crooks behind bars.
That said, if the people could elect a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, there is the possibility some could be jailed.
The Clintons, the Bushes, Cheney, et al., and the corporate owners of the United States, will never permit any interference in their control of this once free nation.
That said, if the people could elect a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, there is the possibility some could be jailed.
The Clintons, the Bushes, Cheney, et al., and the corporate owners of the United States, will never permit any interference in their control of this once free nation.
4
The pendulum swings. After 911 when we criticized government for not connecting the dots, it was easy to implement the surveillance programs we have now. Unfortunately personal privacy isn't the only issue at stake, there are other important issues of national security that exist in a contemporary world that couldn't have been imagined when the founders wrote the constitution. And after all the excitement about the NSA collecting phone records, isn't it ironic that we are willingly sacrificing our privacy to google and facebook every single day.
It is indeed heartening to see the comments here.
My quick poll shows that the readers are overwhelmingly in favor of scrapping the Patriot Act.
I could go further; however, let's remind Congress that when it comes to questions of security vs. liberty, the answer is clear:
~~give the American people want not what the NSA wants.~~
We demand that you:
1. Let the Patriot Act die in June.
2. Rethink legislation for American security today (vs. Sept 2001).
3. Pardon Edward Snowden.
My quick poll shows that the readers are overwhelmingly in favor of scrapping the Patriot Act.
I could go further; however, let's remind Congress that when it comes to questions of security vs. liberty, the answer is clear:
~~give the American people want not what the NSA wants.~~
We demand that you:
1. Let the Patriot Act die in June.
2. Rethink legislation for American security today (vs. Sept 2001).
3. Pardon Edward Snowden.
16
Congress does not have the power to issue pardons; only the president can do that.
1
ACLU has it right. The issue is to whether Sect. 215 provides legitimacy for bulk data collection or not, but whether Sect.215itself is unconstitutional. It is not. 215 epitomizes native fascism, and the court ruling addresses only cosmetics--how to phrase matters to get away with murder.
FISA itself does McCarthyism one better. The administration's combination of finagling and silence once more illustrates Obama and Democratic contempt for civil liberties.
FISA itself does McCarthyism one better. The administration's combination of finagling and silence once more illustrates Obama and Democratic contempt for civil liberties.
3
Bush/Cheney provided for torture and invasion of Americans' privacy. What other accomplishments am I overlooking?
11
their co-presidency while heading a major organized criminal empire?
5
They orchestrated and carried out the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people all over the planet, and they are currently behind the scenes pulling strings, fomenting division and war wherever they can.
4
One other comment. Back when the Patriot Act was passed, there were a number of people who warned that such an act would be abused. It granted too much power to Washington. It also could be used to reduce freedoms and to allow the government extraordinary powers of the freedoms and privacy of its citizens.
We were told, not that would never happen in the United States, the greatest country in the world, the leader of the free world, the shining light on the hill, etc. And, almost the moment the Patriot act was passed, the government moved to curtail freedoms and spy, not only on its enemies, but its allies and citizens. It also gave powers to conduct war by proxy (drones). And it was used to justify other foreign actions.
Edward Snowden brought this to light. Him, and those who spoke against the Patriot Act, have been vindicated. Many of those politicians, running in 2016, voted for the Patriot Act, many more are ready to expand it and enhance it. Today's decision may put a halt to this action; thankfully.
While it never got to that point, the Patriot Act falls under the old adage: "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
And again, remember this from Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And he was so right.
We were told, not that would never happen in the United States, the greatest country in the world, the leader of the free world, the shining light on the hill, etc. And, almost the moment the Patriot act was passed, the government moved to curtail freedoms and spy, not only on its enemies, but its allies and citizens. It also gave powers to conduct war by proxy (drones). And it was used to justify other foreign actions.
Edward Snowden brought this to light. Him, and those who spoke against the Patriot Act, have been vindicated. Many of those politicians, running in 2016, voted for the Patriot Act, many more are ready to expand it and enhance it. Today's decision may put a halt to this action; thankfully.
While it never got to that point, the Patriot Act falls under the old adage: "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
And again, remember this from Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And he was so right.
15
which of your freedoms has been curtailed by the government? do tell
Read through the comments in this blog; several are mentioned. Read comments about Rand Paul on the subject.
Ever hear of illegal search and seizure? How about due process? How about habeus corpus? for starters. And guess what? I would say tapping one's phone, with no reason to do so, violates a person's right to privacy. The crux of the article written here.
If you like living in a nation where you cede all rights for your safety, even if means eliminating the entire Us Constitution, then maybe you should consider North Korea.
Ever hear of illegal search and seizure? How about due process? How about habeus corpus? for starters. And guess what? I would say tapping one's phone, with no reason to do so, violates a person's right to privacy. The crux of the article written here.
If you like living in a nation where you cede all rights for your safety, even if means eliminating the entire Us Constitution, then maybe you should consider North Korea.
6
Yet everyone seems fine with security cameras filming them constantly in stores,at banks, at all sorts of public places and private. People watch as you try on clothes in stores. Everyone is thrilled that there are so many cell phones taking pictures out there.Privacy is pretty much an illusion. A government not keeping track of it's people as well as other's is a delusion. A totally transparent government is a hallucination.
Interesting, but just this week the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Florida, Alabama and Georgia) ruled that the police could search historical cell phone records without a warrant because those records are "business records" held by a third party (and one doesn't own the records held by a third party like a phone company and therefore there are minimal 4th amendment concerns).
So even if the NSA stops collecting all of our phone records (and emails, etc.) they can simply scoop them up from a third party without a warrant. In today's digital world, digital records provide so much information that those records are deserving of 4th amendment protection.
So even if the NSA stops collecting all of our phone records (and emails, etc.) they can simply scoop them up from a third party without a warrant. In today's digital world, digital records provide so much information that those records are deserving of 4th amendment protection.
6
I have always been frustrated when elements of the government interpret a law to mean what they want it to mean, rather than what it was clearly intended to mean. This is true so obviously true of the Patriot Act whose author told us it was not intended to allow mass domestic spying.
The same "reinterpretation" liberties are too often taken with our highest secular law, the constitution. In that much of the focus of our constitution is limiting government and preserving liberties, this reinterpretation is generally to our determent. Are we a country ruled by laws, or by men (/women). To the degree that law means whatever the reader want it too, we are ruled by men/women and not laws.
John
The same "reinterpretation" liberties are too often taken with our highest secular law, the constitution. In that much of the focus of our constitution is limiting government and preserving liberties, this reinterpretation is generally to our determent. Are we a country ruled by laws, or by men (/women). To the degree that law means whatever the reader want it too, we are ruled by men/women and not laws.
John
4
The emergence of ISIS (ISIL) appears to have been a complete surprise to the US government, despite the free hand given to the NSA to spy, worldwide.
Perhaps the NSA was too busy keeping track of my 85-year old grandmother’s phone calls to have noticed the emergence of an actual terrorist group.
(The term, “Patriot Act”, from the last Bush was the best bit of Orwellian Doublespeak to come at us, yet. It sounds like the “Ministry of Truth” or the “Ministry of Love” crafted it. And the older Bush’s “New World Order” always reminded me of Aldous Huxley’s, “Brave New World”. All we need now is Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”. From recent police incidents around the country, apparently we already have a police force that could start rounding up the books and shoving them into their Iraq-surplus military vehicles for burning elsewhere.)
Perhaps the NSA was too busy keeping track of my 85-year old grandmother’s phone calls to have noticed the emergence of an actual terrorist group.
(The term, “Patriot Act”, from the last Bush was the best bit of Orwellian Doublespeak to come at us, yet. It sounds like the “Ministry of Truth” or the “Ministry of Love” crafted it. And the older Bush’s “New World Order” always reminded me of Aldous Huxley’s, “Brave New World”. All we need now is Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”. From recent police incidents around the country, apparently we already have a police force that could start rounding up the books and shoving them into their Iraq-surplus military vehicles for burning elsewhere.)
9
Exactly, though I'm not surprised that some high up in the Republican spin machine have not read, or even heard of, those famous works or authors.
3
Except in imagining a World State, and including the words "New World," "New World Order" has almost nothing to do with Huxley's "Brave New World."
1
The Patriot Act needs to be repealed, not just letting Article 215 "expire". We lost habeas corpus, among other Constitutional rights under this bill that apparently went unread before it was approved by our seemingly mindless legislators.
Repeal the Act and then look VERY closely at the National Security Act of 1947.
That notorious piece of legislation created the National Security Council (which begat the NSA, NRO, CIA, DIA, etc.) and REMOVED THESE AGENCIES FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL. No branch of government can direct the operations of these intelligence agencies. The President can appoint directors, Congress can obtain testimony and briefings, but none can affect their activities. Indeed, Congress has limited visibility of even their expenditures, as they're "classified" (as if everything in government).
Until the Security legislation is repealed and/or redone. we will continue to live in the security state (and, of course, there is none). Judicial, legislative and presidential hand wringing (and the attendant media coverage) will do nothing to stop this "machine".
Repeal the Act and then look VERY closely at the National Security Act of 1947.
That notorious piece of legislation created the National Security Council (which begat the NSA, NRO, CIA, DIA, etc.) and REMOVED THESE AGENCIES FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL. No branch of government can direct the operations of these intelligence agencies. The President can appoint directors, Congress can obtain testimony and briefings, but none can affect their activities. Indeed, Congress has limited visibility of even their expenditures, as they're "classified" (as if everything in government).
Until the Security legislation is repealed and/or redone. we will continue to live in the security state (and, of course, there is none). Judicial, legislative and presidential hand wringing (and the attendant media coverage) will do nothing to stop this "machine".
2
What I'm saying is that the Patriot Act did more damage to our country than any terrorist every could. Too many people have died to preserve our liberties to simply legislate them out of existence due to fear.
10
Finally, the court system is catching up with the unprecedented opportunities breathtaking technological advances have given the government to invade our privacy. The law always lags behind technology. The government no longer needs to physically invade your property to violate your privacy rights. With technology, they can do so from afar and non-intrusively, without the target even suspecting. This has important investigative advantages, but is also raises terrible philosophical, legal, and social dilemmas.
The anything goes post 9\11 era, including torture, should come to an end. We need a thoughtful balance between the government's right to investigate and the individual's right to be free from unlawful governmental intrusions into his\her privacy. This is a step in that direction that will hopeful start a fruitful debate about our identity as a free people, and what is acceptable or not. And among the many people we have to thank for this victory, let us not forget Edward Snowden.
The anything goes post 9\11 era, including torture, should come to an end. We need a thoughtful balance between the government's right to investigate and the individual's right to be free from unlawful governmental intrusions into his\her privacy. This is a step in that direction that will hopeful start a fruitful debate about our identity as a free people, and what is acceptable or not. And among the many people we have to thank for this victory, let us not forget Edward Snowden.
2
Why is it so hard to understand that terrorism actually isn't that big of a threat, especially in the homeland (continental United States). Even on 9/11, "only" 3,000 people died. All the terrorist attacks in the US since then add up to a mere fraction of that number. Meanwhile much more people die of car accidents and other random actions that should occur to us as being equally as tragic as a terrorist attack. Yes, there is that remote possibility that terrorists might unleash a nuke at some point in the future, but remember that (a) phone data collection of US citizens domestically have little to do with terrorist nuke attacks, (b) there is no evidence that this type of bulk collection yields any good results, and (c) most importantly, that still doesn't mean that 300+ million Americans should have to give up our rights to privacy and free speech (because getting spied upon has the detrimental effect of people inhibiting what they really want to say).
5
If there is no haystack, then it is easy to find the needle. USA Patriot act should go. It should have never been acted on. In name of security, the privacy was trampled all over. What is that hawks want? Destroy the constitution?
7
The secret court that reviewed NSA activities never came to this conclusion because the Justice Department never asked for such a review.
This case underlines the necessity of an open court system to review matters such as mass government spying on U.S. citizens inside the U.S.
This case underlines the necessity of an open court system to review matters such as mass government spying on U.S. citizens inside the U.S.
7
Any court, that sticks to the rule of law will find the NSA mass collection of phone data illegal. It's the sweeping surveillance and the staggering volumes that are unwarranted.
5
Remember then good ole days when something was declared unlawful and it actually ended. So now we have the NSA continuing with an unlawful program.
What's up with breaking the law Mr. Obama?
What's up with breaking the law Mr. Obama?
13
As a civil-libertarian I'm relieved and yet I'm ambivalent since the ACLU is not acknowledging that the greater- good theory trumps the bill of rights. We live in a dangerous world; we may be like the Roman empire before its fall. Perhaps better intelligence and technology are the answers to focus on potential terrorists. Consider though what method of interrogation would be acceptable if we had someone in custody who knew where a weapon of mass destruction was located.
3
All straw man arguments. First, the bulk collection of data has not thwarted a single terrorist attack in the decade, or so, it has been operating. Not a one. Second, torture does not get at the truth, so torturing someone who knows where a bomb is located will not work. Third, we have already had this discussion about the government's right to intrude on our fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. It is called the constitution and although it may be hard for folks to understand, there were dangerous times even back then.
If we are brought down by ISIS, al Qaeda, or any of the other extremist groups located 8,000 miles away, it won't be because we did not carry out bulk collection. And if you want to live in a crime free Country, do you agree to random searches of all citizens and their homes?
Terrorism is the boogeyman for eroding our civil liberties. It is the government's attempt to know everything we are doing that is only made possible because we live in an electronic world. For those who are scared of terrorist attacks, nothing will make them feel safe. Live life and realize you are most likely going to die from something you don't even expect.
If we are brought down by ISIS, al Qaeda, or any of the other extremist groups located 8,000 miles away, it won't be because we did not carry out bulk collection. And if you want to live in a crime free Country, do you agree to random searches of all citizens and their homes?
Terrorism is the boogeyman for eroding our civil liberties. It is the government's attempt to know everything we are doing that is only made possible because we live in an electronic world. For those who are scared of terrorist attacks, nothing will make them feel safe. Live life and realize you are most likely going to die from something you don't even expect.
12
"the greater- good theory trumps the bill of rights."
This is wrong legally, and it is also wrong ethically.
This is wrong legally, and it is also wrong ethically.
4
Obama supports the PA, and we don't get to see the President's Daily Briefing. We don't really know about all the terrorist threats and how many potential attacks have been thwarted. Maybe they haven't been thwarted by listening in on calls but the potential threats are out there and any politician would be a fool to ignore that.
This ruling is great but does anyone believe the Government will abide by the ruling?
5
Thank you James Risen and Erich Lichtblau for reporting on this illegal wire tapping operation, and the NYT for publishing this story back in December of 2005. Seeing how the government went after Risen ostensibly for reporting other issues, I always saw it as the government trying to get 'payback' for this report. We really need a free press now more than ever. And I think of reporters on national security issues as true American heroes.
14
“Section 215 helps us find a needle in the haystack,” McConnel said. “But under the USA Freedom Act, there might not be a haystack at all.”
Is that what we are now, "a haystack"? An please tell me what "needles have been found, surely not the 2 guys in Texas last week who were KNOWN to be bad guys.
Is that what we are now, "a haystack"? An please tell me what "needles have been found, surely not the 2 guys in Texas last week who were KNOWN to be bad guys.
13
This discussion is so foolish. 1. Snowden's intent was treasonous. He did not target the domestic phone collection information, it is not even clear that he knew about it, he stole and distributed so much more to our enemies. And the collection was court authorized. 2. There is really no difference from a "freedom" point of view who holds the records for the government's use, though requiring each company to keep the records is a huge added economic cost with a reduced return on investment.
1
I'll say this about Howard, whoever he might be: He has quick, easy answers. Sanctimonious, judge-and-jury (self-appointed) answers, to be sure. But you can't deny Howard's black-and-white absolutism.
9
Treason requires providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, sort of like what Reagan did by selling arms to Iran (google Iran Contra).
Snowden did not provide aid or comfort to any enemy of the US; he just caused the truth about what the government was secretly doing, including violation of constitutional rights, to be released to the public.
Snowden did not provide aid or comfort to any enemy of the US; he just caused the truth about what the government was secretly doing, including violation of constitutional rights, to be released to the public.
8
Steve S
If you believe that Snowden didn't provide aid to our enemies, than you need to rethink your intellectual non partisan credentials. Snowden effectively hobbled significant US foreign policy efforts and put many at risk. It can be argued that what he did was worthwhile, but you cannot deny the very real cost to this country. He did commit treason, there is no doubt about that technically. It can be argued however that IF he were acting solely on conscience (which is in itself enormously debatable) that he was a patriot trying to return a hidden shadow government to the light. So the debate continues.
If you believe that Snowden didn't provide aid to our enemies, than you need to rethink your intellectual non partisan credentials. Snowden effectively hobbled significant US foreign policy efforts and put many at risk. It can be argued that what he did was worthwhile, but you cannot deny the very real cost to this country. He did commit treason, there is no doubt about that technically. It can be argued however that IF he were acting solely on conscience (which is in itself enormously debatable) that he was a patriot trying to return a hidden shadow government to the light. So the debate continues.
Citizen Four, the documentary film about Snowden, is now available as a download. My impression watching him being interviewed is that he is remarkably intelligent, well intentioned, humble, likable, brave, consciously self sacrificing, seriously thoughtful and wise beyond his years.
19
I’m dumbfounded by the individuals who think that a document written in the 1700’s can be applied in today’s information age. Every country is going to exploit to the maximum the data collection capabilities of computers (that’s what computers do!), including data that crosses their borders to and from the U.S. How is it that our own citizens want to tie our hands in this battle? Do they think that they have any iota of privacy left, not only from the government but from corporations or even a savvy single hacker in his home office? The trend is irreversible and computers are getting more and more efficient even in the time we spend posting our comments here. The nation’s founders were clueless. The naiveté of people who want to restore privacy back to the 1700’s have their heads in the ground.
1
Could have made the same argument about phones when they came into use. Why not wiretap everyone's phone to see what they are talking about? The Supreme Court initially ruled that phone wiretaps did not require a warrant, but reversed that precedent. If only the 4th Amendment got a tenth of the respect given to the 2nd Amendment.
9
Aggressive data mining of telephony metadata can provide substantial information about things like who everyone is having sex with.
Uber reportedly mines their data for late night rendezvous. Jack takes a car from a residential building on the east side to a residential building on the west side at 10:00 pm and returns at 1:00 am twice a week.
Perhaps I take exception to data mining like that.
Uber reportedly mines their data for late night rendezvous. Jack takes a car from a residential building on the east side to a residential building on the west side at 10:00 pm and returns at 1:00 am twice a week.
Perhaps I take exception to data mining like that.
"I’m dumbfounded by the individuals who think that a document written in the 1700’s can be applied in today’s information age."
Then what would you say about a document written two or three thousand years ago? It's called the Bible.
Then what would you say about a document written two or three thousand years ago? It's called the Bible.
3
This means that Snowdon is a whistle blower not a traitor.
12
I was born in 1951. Since I was born there have been a total of only 5 constitutional amendments, none at all dealing with anything remotely updating the issues that confront America today. The founders, brilliant as they were, were not prescient. It is truly time for a thorough all encompassing review of how we choose to exercise our freedoms. Instead of congress writing the laws, due to permanent intransigence, it falls to SCOTUS by default. You cant tell me thats what the founders envisioned. Phone data is one tiny drop of modern life that our laws just dont address. So either consider making modern law and updating the constitution or let unelected partisan SCOTUS do it for you. And I will bet you that SCOTUS would agree.
1
Edward Snowden has been vindicated, and we all owe him a huge vote of thanks. There has been an extremely active campaign to smear him, I suspect a good deal of it by government employees typing away on sites like this on government time. We are seeing some more of that today, including the same tired, unending drumbeat of misrepresentations, but people aren't buying. The truth is coming out, thanks to Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, and, today, the judges of the Second Circuit.
19
You have a smart phone, etc.? The corporate world knows everywhere you go, who you call, what you search, etc. etc. And you willingly provide them with that info so you can have the other benefits of the apparatus. That doesn't even get into the reality that you and your vehicle are shown on video of one kind or another almost from the moment you step out of your door. And, of course, your wireless baby monitor is there for anyone who wants to view it. NSA tracking your calls is the least surveillance you are subjected to. "84' is here and we carry it in our pockets, and can't wait to get the newest monitoring system in our pocket or on our wrist.
1
Speak for yourself, valjean. Maybe you can't wait to get the newest monitoring system, but I can.
So what have we gained from the total disregard of our liberties? The program failed to alert us to the Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber, Times Square Bomber or the Boston Bombers.
If the people entrusted to protect us had all done their jobs there would never have been a need for a Patriot Act. E.g. the airport security guards who waved two of the 9/11 attackers through even though the detector was still flashing, our State Dept. that gave visa's to some of the assailants despite their forms being incomplete, the FBI who ignored a female Agent because of a culture that rewards those who don't rock the boat instead of outside the box thinkers that Hoover once cultivated, and lastly Presidents Clinton and Bush who didn't do remotely enough to go after Al Qaeda.
If the people entrusted to protect us had all done their jobs there would never have been a need for a Patriot Act. E.g. the airport security guards who waved two of the 9/11 attackers through even though the detector was still flashing, our State Dept. that gave visa's to some of the assailants despite their forms being incomplete, the FBI who ignored a female Agent because of a culture that rewards those who don't rock the boat instead of outside the box thinkers that Hoover once cultivated, and lastly Presidents Clinton and Bush who didn't do remotely enough to go after Al Qaeda.
7
More importantly, what protects us is intelligent people using "small data", not a bunch of computer nerds sifting through reams of "big data."
2
I thought political conservatives oppose Big Government prying into Americans'
private lives. Here we have the Bush/Cheney crew foisting this right-winger's PR dream euphemism: the Patriot Act to cover Big Government invasion at its most onerous. Bush/Cheney's evil work empowered the Big Government feds to snoop on my, your, his, her, our, their private communications. Bush/Cheney's hypocrisy is breathtaking.
private lives. Here we have the Bush/Cheney crew foisting this right-winger's PR dream euphemism: the Patriot Act to cover Big Government invasion at its most onerous. Bush/Cheney's evil work empowered the Big Government feds to snoop on my, your, his, her, our, their private communications. Bush/Cheney's hypocrisy is breathtaking.
7
Bush started the spying under The Patriot Act and we know he was a rogue cowboy.
Obama greatly expanded the spying and he's an intelligent constitutional law scholar elected to undo Bush's constitutional wrongs. So what's Obama's excuse for continuing with this illegal activity?
Obama greatly expanded the spying and he's an intelligent constitutional law scholar elected to undo Bush's constitutional wrongs. So what's Obama's excuse for continuing with this illegal activity?
17
Obama's "excuse" for continuing with this "illegal" activity is that if we again experience something like 9-11, and he had cancelled the NSA Phone Data Collection Program, he and his reputation would be doubly up the creek. He would be blamed both for the disaster and the cancelling of the program.
3
Can we please stop using ridiculous, inapplicable metaphors that mainly aid to dumb things down or avoid the issues? People are not a haystack, nor should we be looking for "needles." History informs us that what matters most is human intelligence based upon relationships built over time. Sadly this is not as easy as the pretense of using computers to collect anything and everything as if it matters when it's really only a form of federal welfare for the secret-industrial complex - at everyone's expense.
19
Obscene irony of the day: The Obama Department of Justice has criminally charged Edward Snowden (including two counts under the Espionage Act) for revealing a program of mass surveillance it concocted, and which has now been declared illegal by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals --- as the result of litigation prompted by Snowden's disclosures.
In effect, Snowden has been charged with the "crime" of revealing the government's illegal conduct.
Stalin, anyone?
In effect, Snowden has been charged with the "crime" of revealing the government's illegal conduct.
Stalin, anyone?
31
Gee, maybe they should've waited to build that multi-billion dollar data storage facility to store data that now seems to have been collected illegally.
11
If Snowden is a traitor for exposing illegal activities of the government, then we need more such traitors.
20
Thank you, ACLU.
21
Can we now bring Mr. Snowden home and give him a ticker tape parade?
17
Not to rain on the parade, but I would guess that the chances that the illegal spying on citizens by the US government will actually stop because of a court decision asymptotically approach zero. They still have the capability to do it and so they will; rather than being naive, just know that that is what they do and frame your life accordingly.
It pulls the curtain back a bit on where the real power lies in this country. Our laws and Constitution are starting to look more and more like a pathetic facade on a fascist state. If you disagree, just remember this post when you learn a few years down the road that in fact the spying never stopped.
It pulls the curtain back a bit on where the real power lies in this country. Our laws and Constitution are starting to look more and more like a pathetic facade on a fascist state. If you disagree, just remember this post when you learn a few years down the road that in fact the spying never stopped.
10
typical of our "justice system."Our moribund legal system took years to do the right thing. A day late and a dollar short. Justice delayed is justice denied.
6
So I guess now Obama issues arrest warrants on the judges just like the one issued on Snowden? Or maybe he issues one on himself, now that he himself is a lawbreaker.
7
Good grief, give the Obama-hating a rest, will you?
"The bulk phone records program traces back to October 2001. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to begin a group of surveillance and data-collection programs, without obeying statutory limits, for the purpose of hunting for hidden terrorist cells."
"The bulk phone records program traces back to October 2001. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to begin a group of surveillance and data-collection programs, without obeying statutory limits, for the purpose of hunting for hidden terrorist cells."
1
Bush began it but Obama continued it. The ball's in his court now.
2
The Constitution supplies specifics and details about citizens' freedoms.
The Bush Administration's rhetoric appealed to the ambiguous -- fear and safety to justify the inception of these programs.
Terrorism is an awful, evil thing that must be prevented. But more people have died per year from homicide and car accidents, and we have not gone to such expensive lengths and eroded the Constitution to prevent these occurrences. In fact, GW Bush's optional invasion of Iraq cost more in American lives and treasure than 9/11.
From the start, GW Bush's "War on Terror" was an obvious rhetorical fallacy -- shame on those in the news media who let such irrational arguments pass uncriticized. There will always be threats, as there always will be crime. Allowing freedoms to be abridged (in secret as well!) in the name of unquantified, absolutist goals such as until a "War on Terror" is ended, is absurd, since these are unquantified, never ending goals. Should the Constitution be eroded until the there is no more crime?
The way in which this was authorized was also suspect, if not blatantly wrong and unethical.
If there should be such a surveillance program, was there a publicly scrutinized, and _logical_ and _rational_ debate about specifically defined issues, and the limits of government surveillance?
The Bush Administration's rhetoric appealed to the ambiguous -- fear and safety to justify the inception of these programs.
Terrorism is an awful, evil thing that must be prevented. But more people have died per year from homicide and car accidents, and we have not gone to such expensive lengths and eroded the Constitution to prevent these occurrences. In fact, GW Bush's optional invasion of Iraq cost more in American lives and treasure than 9/11.
From the start, GW Bush's "War on Terror" was an obvious rhetorical fallacy -- shame on those in the news media who let such irrational arguments pass uncriticized. There will always be threats, as there always will be crime. Allowing freedoms to be abridged (in secret as well!) in the name of unquantified, absolutist goals such as until a "War on Terror" is ended, is absurd, since these are unquantified, never ending goals. Should the Constitution be eroded until the there is no more crime?
The way in which this was authorized was also suspect, if not blatantly wrong and unethical.
If there should be such a surveillance program, was there a publicly scrutinized, and _logical_ and _rational_ debate about specifically defined issues, and the limits of government surveillance?
14
Dude, update your rhetoric. Obama has been been this program for six years now and signed the bill reauthorizing it three years ago.
1
Edward Snowden appointed himself as the sole arbiter of which information should be leaked and to whom. The arrogance is palpable.
As a taxpayer, voter, and devout liberal, I resent that Snowden didn't go through the proper legal channels so as to guarantee me a voice in the post-whistleblowing, fact-finding process vis-a-vis my elected officials. Yes, the NSA should be reigned in, and I hate the PA, but Snowden should have stayed here, brought things to light, and let the rest of us participate in a democratic process to get to the bottom of things.
I resent that he took that right away from me. Other countries might have classified information that I and others wouldn't want them to have, but we didn't get a chance to make our voices heard.
Edward Snowden is a traitor.
As a taxpayer, voter, and devout liberal, I resent that Snowden didn't go through the proper legal channels so as to guarantee me a voice in the post-whistleblowing, fact-finding process vis-a-vis my elected officials. Yes, the NSA should be reigned in, and I hate the PA, but Snowden should have stayed here, brought things to light, and let the rest of us participate in a democratic process to get to the bottom of things.
I resent that he took that right away from me. Other countries might have classified information that I and others wouldn't want them to have, but we didn't get a chance to make our voices heard.
Edward Snowden is a traitor.
5
Going through the proper channels ensures a coverup. Or metaphorically speaking when you are in a "proper channel" you are drowning.
4
If Snowden had gone through the "proper legal channels" it is doubtful that we would have even heard about the extent of the NSA's spying on us. You underestimate the peril of police state behavior by our government.
7
Mellow, this is apparently satire, yes?
2
The 4th Amendment does not confer a cloak of invisibility. How is the 215 collection of bulk data--prior to any investigatory activity pursuant to a FISA warrant, any different that Google Earth images of my back yard?
2
As a nation, we seem to have been somewhat lax about following the law, whether that is international law - the Geneva Convention, for example - or our own Constitution and statutes; and since the NSA has not been enjoined from continuing this conduct, our Second Circuit Court of Appeals has left it to Congress to determine whether to prohibit the dragnet approach to the collection of our domestic phone records or to re-draft the "Patriot Act" statute in such a way that it permits this massive fishing expedition in a way that is not offensive to our Constitution (IF that can even be done).
But no matter what Congress does now, the overarching question remains whether our national security organizations will even bother to follow the law now, when that seems to have been a significant deliberate omission so many times in the bast.
But no matter what Congress does now, the overarching question remains whether our national security organizations will even bother to follow the law now, when that seems to have been a significant deliberate omission so many times in the bast.
5
Obama knows as well as anyone how illegal and immoral this program is. He was an ardent and eloquent critic of it before taking office. So ask yourself - why has it GROWN RAPIDLY under his presidency? To me that is the huge question here. Does the NSA have power over the President? Do they have private information about him? Or about the world that made him change his mind? Is the lure of power too great? Why do we face the possibility that after 8 years of a "liberal" president that we could hand a vastly expanded surveillance apparatus back to a republican president? And in that scenario what exactly can any democrat say to criticize this with credibility?
8
All very salient points to consider. Obama did know what the Constitution requires, yet he, and a Dem majority Congress, expanded the Patriot Act far beyond the damage Bush already inflicted on US citizens. Moreover, for 6.5 years, Obama has told us that only metadata was being collected. It's hard to swallow, but both parties are in on the gig to America's great loss of liberty.
2
Tell you what, Andrew.
Read the article - because clearly you didn't do so before commenting - and then re-read your comment.
Yeah, I'd be embarrassed, too. Time to acknowledge that W wasn't such a great choice.
Here's a head's up:
"Over time, the legal basis for each component of that program, known as Stellarwind, evolved. In 2006, the [Bush] administration persuaded a Federal District Court judge serving on the FISA Court, Malcolm J. Howard, to issue the first of many court orders blessing the phone records component, based on the idea that Section 215 could be interpreted as authorizing it. Many other judges serving on the FISA court have subsequently renewed the program at roughly 90-day intervals."
Read the article - because clearly you didn't do so before commenting - and then re-read your comment.
Yeah, I'd be embarrassed, too. Time to acknowledge that W wasn't such a great choice.
Here's a head's up:
"Over time, the legal basis for each component of that program, known as Stellarwind, evolved. In 2006, the [Bush] administration persuaded a Federal District Court judge serving on the FISA Court, Malcolm J. Howard, to issue the first of many court orders blessing the phone records component, based on the idea that Section 215 could be interpreted as authorizing it. Many other judges serving on the FISA court have subsequently renewed the program at roughly 90-day intervals."
How about they use all that technology to find the scammers that hide their caller ID and try to steal and con from us normal American citizens? Wouldn't that be more palatable? We would actually get something visible for their efforts and our tax dollars.
5
"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."
I guess it takes legions of lawyers well trained in rhetoric, and not so much in logic, to make this a "debate."
The Constitution plainly forbids the government from doing precisely that which the government has been doing.
Oh, and the President isn't supposed to be able to use the power of the American military in "kinetic actions" or to blow up Pakistani weddings to kill a "terror suspect."
But, the way I see it, Obama was appointed as the puppet in chief post Bush *precisely* to get the Left, whose convictions don't run so deep as their dislike of the bare idea of competing opinions, to stop protesting the wars and the attacks on civil liberties.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/
That's why I'm voting for a white male Republican.
The only way the Let will see the wars and spying as both immoral and unconstitutional is to get someone they hate to be nominally in charge.
I guess it takes legions of lawyers well trained in rhetoric, and not so much in logic, to make this a "debate."
The Constitution plainly forbids the government from doing precisely that which the government has been doing.
Oh, and the President isn't supposed to be able to use the power of the American military in "kinetic actions" or to blow up Pakistani weddings to kill a "terror suspect."
But, the way I see it, Obama was appointed as the puppet in chief post Bush *precisely* to get the Left, whose convictions don't run so deep as their dislike of the bare idea of competing opinions, to stop protesting the wars and the attacks on civil liberties.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/
That's why I'm voting for a white male Republican.
The only way the Let will see the wars and spying as both immoral and unconstitutional is to get someone they hate to be nominally in charge.
6
Obama?
Read the article. The Patriot Act was originally launched SECRETLY under President George W Bush.
"The bulk phone records program traces back to October 2001. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to begin a group of surveillance and data-collection programs..."
Read the article. The Patriot Act was originally launched SECRETLY under President George W Bush.
"The bulk phone records program traces back to October 2001. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to begin a group of surveillance and data-collection programs..."
2
The celebration in the comments may be premature. The decision explicitly did not decide the constitutional questions presented by the case. The decision rested entirely on the court's interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act - which the court concluded, correctly I think, did not authorize the NSA's telephone metadata collection program.
But section 215 was already scheduled to expire on June 1, and Congress is actively considering in what form to renew it. Congress could renew section 215 with an explicit endorsement of the NSA's program, or a modified version of the program, which would send the issue back to the courts to decide the constitutional issues. Or Congress could renew section 215 without directly addressing the NSA program, which would leave the Obama Administration free to appeal the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court, which is rather more pro-security and rather less pro-privacy than this Court of Appeals.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
But section 215 was already scheduled to expire on June 1, and Congress is actively considering in what form to renew it. Congress could renew section 215 with an explicit endorsement of the NSA's program, or a modified version of the program, which would send the issue back to the courts to decide the constitutional issues. Or Congress could renew section 215 without directly addressing the NSA program, which would leave the Obama Administration free to appeal the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court, which is rather more pro-security and rather less pro-privacy than this Court of Appeals.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
2
So Snowden revealed illegal activity on the part of our government, activity infringing on our civil liberties. If not for Snowden, we'd still be in the dark.
Now I know why the US government is so upset with him.
Now I know why the US government is so upset with him.
19
Firstly, I would like to add my voice to the large body of US citizens calling for a stop to the ongoing persecution and, more importantly, prosecution of Edward Snowden. This incredibly selfless young man now is living within the borders of Russia because of the very real fear that the Obama administration will rendition him to some kangaroo military tribunal. The president should be ASHAMED of himself for his treatment of whistle blowers.
I have always felt that Osama Bin Laden scored his greatest victory, not by killing Americans on 9-11, but by causing America to abandon the principles of freedom, democracy, and justice in our subsequent dealings. Spying on American's private communications is only the most abhorrent of activities we have adopted as we prosecuted the ridiculous "war on terror." The fact the James Clapper is not himself facing a prison sentence for LYING to congress UNDER OATH about this spying, is just another example of how unethical and felonious the action of the NSA are and how unwilling the justice department is to do its job. Indeed, instead of attacking the existence of the IRS, our republican dominated congress should be looking to defund the patently illegal NSA. As for myself, I weep for what our nation has become and fear we will never again represent the bastion of liberty we once were.
I have always felt that Osama Bin Laden scored his greatest victory, not by killing Americans on 9-11, but by causing America to abandon the principles of freedom, democracy, and justice in our subsequent dealings. Spying on American's private communications is only the most abhorrent of activities we have adopted as we prosecuted the ridiculous "war on terror." The fact the James Clapper is not himself facing a prison sentence for LYING to congress UNDER OATH about this spying, is just another example of how unethical and felonious the action of the NSA are and how unwilling the justice department is to do its job. Indeed, instead of attacking the existence of the IRS, our republican dominated congress should be looking to defund the patently illegal NSA. As for myself, I weep for what our nation has become and fear we will never again represent the bastion of liberty we once were.
21
What's the IRS got do do with all this, and why must it be abolished, as you imply?
N.S.A. bulk collection…USA PATRIOT Act…The Patriot Act.
This misguided, overreaching piece of…jurisprudence…has been a broken promise and false prophet masquerading behind a truncated oxymoronic backronym since signed in a panic by Bush in Oct of '01, barely past three weeks post attacks, its smell didn’t improved with Obama signing its extension act in'11 and the stench wafting from the House Of Republicans says the new extension/rendition won't smell any better.
It’s a broken promise in as much as it has divided not united, weakened not strengthen and, arguably, provided only inappropriate excesses that were not required, not helpful and which haven’t intercepted or obstructed a single known terror act…and with its 'methods and abilities' being openly castigated and defended in the press by opponents and proponents, the government claiming “national security” for failing to release their alleged but highly doubted successes is a dog that just won’t hunt.
It’s a false prophet to believe abdicating American uniqueness, constitutional limitations on governmental action, is patriotic and oxymoronic to suggest it would be.
The whole Act should be repealed. Restarted, if insistent, with legislation that doesn’t hold the promise of a Supreme Court showdown sometime in its future.
This misguided, overreaching piece of…jurisprudence…has been a broken promise and false prophet masquerading behind a truncated oxymoronic backronym since signed in a panic by Bush in Oct of '01, barely past three weeks post attacks, its smell didn’t improved with Obama signing its extension act in'11 and the stench wafting from the House Of Republicans says the new extension/rendition won't smell any better.
It’s a broken promise in as much as it has divided not united, weakened not strengthen and, arguably, provided only inappropriate excesses that were not required, not helpful and which haven’t intercepted or obstructed a single known terror act…and with its 'methods and abilities' being openly castigated and defended in the press by opponents and proponents, the government claiming “national security” for failing to release their alleged but highly doubted successes is a dog that just won’t hunt.
It’s a false prophet to believe abdicating American uniqueness, constitutional limitations on governmental action, is patriotic and oxymoronic to suggest it would be.
The whole Act should be repealed. Restarted, if insistent, with legislation that doesn’t hold the promise of a Supreme Court showdown sometime in its future.
5
The discussion about keeping "...bulk records in the hands of phone companies..." is frightening.
How insane must one be to trust Verizon and ATT with the power to selectively initiate prosecution of any of us? Do you really want to trust your life to a corporation operating opaquely and beyond the law?
How insane must one be to trust Verizon and ATT with the power to selectively initiate prosecution of any of us? Do you really want to trust your life to a corporation operating opaquely and beyond the law?
3
"...with the power to selectively initiate prosecution of any of..."
Huh? "initiate prosecution"... Publicly traded telecommunications companies, like Verizon and ATT, do not now have, have never had and never will have prosecutorial powers over a flea on a dog's behind let alone a citizen of, or a visitor to, this republic...
Huh? "initiate prosecution"... Publicly traded telecommunications companies, like Verizon and ATT, do not now have, have never had and never will have prosecutorial powers over a flea on a dog's behind let alone a citizen of, or a visitor to, this republic...
1
Utterly and completely unconstitutional, and what is so worrisome besides the fact that they had the audacity to do it, was that it took so long to stop. It should have been considered constitutionally reprehensible years ago and been acted on then. What politics are in play to allow that to go on for so long? Perhaps those years account as a litmus test against the idea that we have a non-political judicial system.
Now next thing are the drones that will be making regular passes through your backyard at some point. I guess you can never have too much data.
Lastly, does anyone think the NSA will stop gathering information against the will of the constitution? No, we may be a bit powerless, but we are not stupid.
Now next thing are the drones that will be making regular passes through your backyard at some point. I guess you can never have too much data.
Lastly, does anyone think the NSA will stop gathering information against the will of the constitution? No, we may be a bit powerless, but we are not stupid.
5
And that is the problem with a large and powerful federal government. Welcome to the fight.
Thank heavens for Edward Snowden. It is time the government got off his back and welcomed him home as the hero he is.
9
More illegality as a 'legacy' of the Bush-Cheney administration...?
And yet most Republicans and some Democrats want to renew the so-called "Patriot Act" even now...
And yet most Republicans and some Democrats want to renew the so-called "Patriot Act" even now...
4
President Obama signed a re-authorization of the patriot act in 2011 after it passed a Democrat controlled Senate and republican controlled house. President Obama could have stopped it any time he wanted with the famous pen of his since the day he took office.
Time to shut down the secret courts. They are rubber stamps and assume there is a compelling state interest in every case. They are not adversarial, and a perverse incentive system exists whereby they would probably be punished if they ruled adversely.
4
The politicians responsible for authorizing and supporting illegal or unconstitutional domestic surveillance should be identified and held accountable. Taxpayer dollars could be used much more productively.
13
Step 1. Enact the Patriot Act which broadly tramples on every privacy right for USA citizens. Secret courts, secret warrants and secret judges -- with no historical precedent for such wide and continuous data collection within the USA.
2. Many years later and in 2017, retain the Patriot Act and remove only a few bits of it as both legal court and public pressure increases. Also known as applying a band-aid to make it look like things were fixed.
3. Overall, a net gain for the NSA and USA govt security complex because much of the Patriot Act is still in place for decades.
Cynical I know but when McConnell of all people starts talking about minor changes to the Patriot Act, it causes one to wonder if there was always a political "long game" at play.
1
I still want to know what kind of reaction would the public have had if Snowden had shown that the US Government was buying this data and if the Court system would have issue with it under the 4th.
"The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…" The Fourth Amendment seems to cover it nicely. Shame that it hasn't been followed.
10
Obviously, mass spying against our own citizens was illegal - if it was legal, it wouldn't have been done in secret.
And, oh yes, it's still being done, and will continue to be done; the only difference will be, to use a mob analogy, "whose house the gun is being keep in".
Meanwhile, Snowden, who is now proven to be a whistle blower, and not an enemy of our people, will continue to rot "back in the U.S.S.R", while Mitch McConnell tries to impress his constituents, by keeping the crime going.
McConnell has nothing to fear, Snowden has everything to fear. Franz Kafka could have written this story.
And, oh yes, it's still being done, and will continue to be done; the only difference will be, to use a mob analogy, "whose house the gun is being keep in".
Meanwhile, Snowden, who is now proven to be a whistle blower, and not an enemy of our people, will continue to rot "back in the U.S.S.R", while Mitch McConnell tries to impress his constituents, by keeping the crime going.
McConnell has nothing to fear, Snowden has everything to fear. Franz Kafka could have written this story.
23
It doesn't look like Snowden is "rotting back in the USSR!"
I can see the finger wagging when a terrorist attack kills, injures and destroys because we had no way to discover the plot.
1
Does Edward Snowden get pardoned now? And why is it that he has to run to another country to avoid prosecution while Gen.Petraeus, who leaked secrets to his lover goes free with a slap on the wrist?
25
Wow what a surprise, NOT. The entire Bush regime, all the Demo's as well, Clapper, Brenner, and Hayden need to go to jail immediately. The so called Patriot Act needs to be repealed and Snowden should be come a national hero. By the way, the phase Homeland was not used before Bush and came from the Nazi regime. Goebbels said it best, when you lie; make it the biggest one possible. Homeland Security is great cover up phraseology for spying on everybody in our homeland.
11
Let's please remember that this program began under W. Bush, a 'compassionate conservative,' not under the 'tyrant' Barack Obama.
6
They are identical twins except one is dyslexic.
1
Obama could have ended it long before Snowden revelation happened, if he did not want to be the 'tyrant'.
2
Duh? Why did this take so long?
Without question, the NSA performs a vital, essential service in support of our policy makers; we need them and NSA is not going to be put out of business. That said, NSA, like all other government agencies, will be held accountable and must follow the law. There are no, "Yes, but..." exceptions made for NSA and there should not be. They can prosecute their mission just fine, well within the law, if/when they wish. One wonders *when* NSA intends to begin.
Without question, the NSA performs a vital, essential service in support of our policy makers; we need them and NSA is not going to be put out of business. That said, NSA, like all other government agencies, will be held accountable and must follow the law. There are no, "Yes, but..." exceptions made for NSA and there should not be. They can prosecute their mission just fine, well within the law, if/when they wish. One wonders *when* NSA intends to begin.
1
Tell me again why Snowden was a traitor for revealing the existence of a program that the Appeals Court says is unauthorized under the existing law, and possibly unconstitutional under any law? When you call 911 because someone is committing a violent crime, is that a betrayal or a public service?
9
because he also revealed a lot of other stuff. Read about it.
For a really accessible explanation of this issue, with some vulgarity, see John Oliver's program, the episode that has the interview with Snowden and how Oliver gets people on the street to actually understand the power the NSA has. You will laugh and weep.
2
The "Patriot" Act was based on hysteria and paranoia; its reduction of our liberties in the name of combating terrorism is incommensurate with the actual risk. Compared to the number of Americans killed every year by firearms and drunk drivers -- deaths that we more or less shrug off -- the threat of terrorism is background noise.
20
So are you comparing the death and destruction of 9/11 "to the number of Americans killed every year by firearms and drunk drivers-- deaths that we more or less shrug off?" Are they just collateral damage in the background noise of terrorism? And would you call 9/11 just hysteria and paranoia?
I concur with all the other posters: this couldn't have happened without the courageous American hero, Edward Snowden (and Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, the Guardian and maybe Wikileaks). Bring him home and give him the Congressional Medal of Honor or whatever they call it these days.
27
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the way civilians are honored.
1
I'm sad to say that I don't think this ruling will mean anything in practice.
The NSA, and probably the rest of the security apparatus, believe that the War on Terror places them above the law that applies to the rest of the country. The Bush administration established that belief, and available evidence suggests that the Obama administration has only strengthened it.
They operate under their own classified system of law that specifically bypasses constitutional constraints that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have always considered inconvenient. It's instead based on their interpretation of the FISA law (including what the appeals court rejected today), along with and assorted classified memos. It's overseen by its own special classified court, whose group-thinking judges hear only the evidence the agencies choose to present and nearly always rubber-stamp what the agencies ask for.
Congress had several opportunities to rein in the security apparatus. But each time they capitulated to Fear and bullying from the Bush and Obama administrations, and renewed the legislation passed in the terrorized days after 9/11. I'm afraid that it's now too late for Congress or the courts to do anything about the entrenched system. Since the security apparatus operates in secrecy, without the transparency and independent oversight that would hold them accountable to the rule of law, they have full license to ignore the courts and Congress even if they do take action.
The NSA, and probably the rest of the security apparatus, believe that the War on Terror places them above the law that applies to the rest of the country. The Bush administration established that belief, and available evidence suggests that the Obama administration has only strengthened it.
They operate under their own classified system of law that specifically bypasses constitutional constraints that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have always considered inconvenient. It's instead based on their interpretation of the FISA law (including what the appeals court rejected today), along with and assorted classified memos. It's overseen by its own special classified court, whose group-thinking judges hear only the evidence the agencies choose to present and nearly always rubber-stamp what the agencies ask for.
Congress had several opportunities to rein in the security apparatus. But each time they capitulated to Fear and bullying from the Bush and Obama administrations, and renewed the legislation passed in the terrorized days after 9/11. I'm afraid that it's now too late for Congress or the courts to do anything about the entrenched system. Since the security apparatus operates in secrecy, without the transparency and independent oversight that would hold them accountable to the rule of law, they have full license to ignore the courts and Congress even if they do take action.
11
I agree with Nick ... all of the "Patriot" Act should be allowed to expire. This Act was always a misnomer. The "Patriot Act"kills our free society and does nothing (that I can see) to stop terrorism. In addition, the FISA courts should be disbanded. These courts have zero oversight by anyone except Chief Justice Roberts. FISA is not democracy, but domination by an overly headstrong judiciary which can outlast Presidents and Congress
6
So the Federal Appeal Court ruled that the bulk collection of phone records is illegal.
So this practice is not legal, even under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Therefore it has to stop , right?
Isn't that how a democracy, with a functioning legal system, and courts works?
So this practice is not legal, even under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Therefore it has to stop , right?
Isn't that how a democracy, with a functioning legal system, and courts works?
4
Probably not, remember the US government can always appeal to the SCOTUS who will say "sure, whatever, go nuts" under Roberts.
2
Everyone in America and likely the world already knew it was illegal except for a few deranged Plutocrats in DC and their datafarm in Utah.
Don't hold your breath though, the last 2 regimes care nothing for the Rule of Law so this will get overturned once enough threats and leveraging have been applied by the Gestapo.
Don't hold your breath though, the last 2 regimes care nothing for the Rule of Law so this will get overturned once enough threats and leveraging have been applied by the Gestapo.
5
This is a welcome ruling. The next question will be how we can make NSA submit to the law. The Judicial Branch does not have police or an army to enforce its rulings. In order to stop this illegal surveillance we will have to have buy in from the Executive Branch which loves the power this information gives them, yet is supposed to enforce the law. Then there are the various intelligence officers, themselves. They are not inclined to obey the law when their power is endanger -- note torture use in the past.
I am happy to see this ruling and hope to see the country insisting in its implementation!
I am happy to see this ruling and hope to see the country insisting in its implementation!
11
Now if they could only make bulk collection of data by private businesses illegal...
12
Remarkable, but only the beginning of great political turmoil.
The future is predicated on the actions of Congress and the President now. If Congress renews section 215 without amendment as McConnell indicates will happen, then the law will most likely be challenged further in appeals and at the Supreme court and it will be very telling if President Obama sets the executive branch to the task of defending the law before those courts. We now know that the Republican Congress wishes to collect the data unencumbered and we will yet see if President Obama, the Constitutional scholar, sides with "The People", or on the side of Government power as he has many times before.
The bill passing through Congress now titled the Freedom Act is an insult to our intelligence. It is in fact a bandaid on the loss of freedom originally legislated by Congress in 2001 with the equally hypocritically named "Patriot Act". For those that think the data left in the hands of the telephone companies is reasonable or protects our privacy, you are sadly naive or mistaken. The phone companies have been complicit with the various governments and authorities for many decades. Relying on the phone companies to protect our privacy is utterly naive.
As is typical of Federal, State, County, and local authorities of our nation, there is always abuse of information access and inventions of crimes based on mundane evidence. I can only hope that those in the N.S.A. truly have respect for our innocence.
The future is predicated on the actions of Congress and the President now. If Congress renews section 215 without amendment as McConnell indicates will happen, then the law will most likely be challenged further in appeals and at the Supreme court and it will be very telling if President Obama sets the executive branch to the task of defending the law before those courts. We now know that the Republican Congress wishes to collect the data unencumbered and we will yet see if President Obama, the Constitutional scholar, sides with "The People", or on the side of Government power as he has many times before.
The bill passing through Congress now titled the Freedom Act is an insult to our intelligence. It is in fact a bandaid on the loss of freedom originally legislated by Congress in 2001 with the equally hypocritically named "Patriot Act". For those that think the data left in the hands of the telephone companies is reasonable or protects our privacy, you are sadly naive or mistaken. The phone companies have been complicit with the various governments and authorities for many decades. Relying on the phone companies to protect our privacy is utterly naive.
As is typical of Federal, State, County, and local authorities of our nation, there is always abuse of information access and inventions of crimes based on mundane evidence. I can only hope that those in the N.S.A. truly have respect for our innocence.
36
Thanks for the pick. It's always a great honor.
The Republicans speak in antonyms: "freedom" is anything but. Does anybody remember George Orwell?
2
The entire FISA system is illegal by any reasonable reading of the 4th Amendment:
"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."
You can't search first and get approval later.
"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."
You can't search first and get approval later.
6
Snowden spoke truth to power and was reviled as a traitor by the powers that be. Can he come home now that he has been virtually vindicated?
8
Oh, so what they mean to say is that since 2006, a "national Security Court of Appeals" had justified the covert collection and spyign on American citizens, but once brought before a public court for scrutiny, it quickly failed to pass msuter? Uh huh, got it now. Good old Uncle Sam "needs you", to Obey without question!
2
Democracy & Bill of Rights vs the Secret National Security State - may be interesting tho probably illegal / impossible to watch how the latter weasel their way around this latest minor speedbump on their merry path toward Total Information Awareness.
2
William Binney was the high level NSA executive who created the NSA's mass surveillance program. He is now a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS.) VIPS is a group composed of former high-level military and intelligence officials and they have recently called for independent intelligence analysis to keep our country safe.
Binney has said that the NSA should have stopped 9/11, the Boston Bombings, and the Paris Shootings. They failed to do so because the agency is corrupted. He also said it was Anonymous that tipped off the Texas Police of the recent shooting not the NSA.
Russell Tice is another former NSA employee that turned whistle blower to alert the public the agency was corrupt.
We have two high level employees of the agency, Snowden, and now the courts have all come out against the NSA. What do our lawmakers say? Feinstein supports everything they do and even writes legislation absolving them of their crimes. Congress introduces legislation that allows the Patriot to continue.
Mass surveillance has never been anything more than to control the populations they allegedly protect. We have 17 security agencies- the NSA has proved itself unreliable. Its failures have led to the deaths of many innocents.
Ask yourself why our lawmakers seem unable to control this group. Perhaps it is because the NSA has collected a treasure trove of information on everyone of them. They compromised democracy- they are a rogue agency and need to go.
Binney has said that the NSA should have stopped 9/11, the Boston Bombings, and the Paris Shootings. They failed to do so because the agency is corrupted. He also said it was Anonymous that tipped off the Texas Police of the recent shooting not the NSA.
Russell Tice is another former NSA employee that turned whistle blower to alert the public the agency was corrupt.
We have two high level employees of the agency, Snowden, and now the courts have all come out against the NSA. What do our lawmakers say? Feinstein supports everything they do and even writes legislation absolving them of their crimes. Congress introduces legislation that allows the Patriot to continue.
Mass surveillance has never been anything more than to control the populations they allegedly protect. We have 17 security agencies- the NSA has proved itself unreliable. Its failures have led to the deaths of many innocents.
Ask yourself why our lawmakers seem unable to control this group. Perhaps it is because the NSA has collected a treasure trove of information on everyone of them. They compromised democracy- they are a rogue agency and need to go.
79
Feinstein has got to go, she got a little rattled when she found out they were spying on her but not enough to stop anything. She managed to work the perfect deal for her husband's real estate company however, he has exclusive rights to sell the real estate that any closed down post office sits on. No corruption there, only smart business (Dollars) sense. We have a one party system in this country called the Corporationists. It has two subsidiaries the depletionists and the demohogs. All paid for by the Corporations.
Arrest the government. No more bulk collection of phone data--or of internet data.
The answer to Al Qaeda and ISIS is not an authoritarian police state.
The answer to Al Qaeda and ISIS is not an authoritarian police state.
9
This is the first ray of hope for the rule of law on this whole subject of the government overreaching under the guise of National Security. I am appalled that President Obama has used the cloak of National Security to scuttle numerous court cases. After this court decision, the President should speak up, thank Snowden for coming forward, and invite him back into the country without threatening him with prosecution. Fat chance!
16
Finally, the "outrage hobbyists" (my term) who've been blindly and inaccurately crowing that the NSA program is, "illegal," (something that was patently untrue) have some grounds. Bully for them.
As this report states, "It is the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program." Don't expect any outrage hobbyists to apologize for their continual historical misuse of "illegal" in arguments against the NSA, expect them to say, "I told you so." Such is the nature of the outrage fad.
~~
Keep in mind, this ruling is not the meat of the matter on the surveillance subject. The meat of the matter on is, "We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far-reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.” This is tacit expression by this higher court that the surveillance in question IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So expect Congress to pass a specific law allowing the surveillance to continue, on national security grounds.
Not that my personal view matters but - I don't like the surveillance. However, if some radical in the US is calling crazies in Yemen and a buying ammonium nitrate on Alibaba, I want the authorities to know about it before he rolls a truck bomb into one of our cities.
As this report states, "It is the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program." Don't expect any outrage hobbyists to apologize for their continual historical misuse of "illegal" in arguments against the NSA, expect them to say, "I told you so." Such is the nature of the outrage fad.
~~
Keep in mind, this ruling is not the meat of the matter on the surveillance subject. The meat of the matter on is, "We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far-reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.” This is tacit expression by this higher court that the surveillance in question IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So expect Congress to pass a specific law allowing the surveillance to continue, on national security grounds.
Not that my personal view matters but - I don't like the surveillance. However, if some radical in the US is calling crazies in Yemen and a buying ammonium nitrate on Alibaba, I want the authorities to know about it before he rolls a truck bomb into one of our cities.
1
All this meta data was useless anyway in thwarting terrorist attacks, and was only good in hindsight to prove a terrorists guilt (which any judge could have signed off on anyway) . The Frontline Documentary "The Perfect Terrorist" showed this and how despite being on the radar of several espionage agencies, David Headley was able to pull off the Mumbai attacks. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/david-headley/
3
This is good news for all Americans. John Poindexter who founded the Information Awareness Office after 9/11 was champing at the bit after his program was defunded in 2004. This program was maximally intrusive of privacy rights. Its very existence signaled organizations like the NSA that it was ok to move toward a Big Brother regime in the United States. This broad-stroke domestic spying was totally illegal before 9/11 and now it has become a pervasive threat to American liberty. The entire Patriot Act should be killed and the chicken hawk scare tactics designed to cow the public into agreeing to be under constant surveillance should be halted in its tracks. Let it die on June 30. We don't need it, and we shouldn't tolerate its further continuance.
4
For all those out there lionizing Edward Snowden, please consider this: he's in exile in Russia. Why will no nation "friendly" to the United States take him in? I'm suspicious of any "American" who would fly to Russia in search of political asylum. We don't know what he's told the Russians. Who is naive enough to think that Comrade Putin wouldn't (or couldn't) "turn" Snowden before he is released? I, for one, remain unconvinced of his motives. And, no, a free government should not collect its citizens' records. But then, if the G. W. Bush administration had taken the time to examine its security intercepts in August, 2001, warning that a terrorist op on U. S. soil was not only possible, but imminent, we might not be having this conversation.
I wonder what happens if this does make it to the Supreme Court?
Not only should this portion of the Patriot Act be made illegal; all of it should be.
While a small victory; it is a victory for our Constitutional rights which were being abridged by Congress and the President of the United States.
The question, why has it took nearly 15 years for a court to rule in favor of freedom and privacy? I know, Edward Snowden who is reviled as as traitor, is more and more looking like a patriot.
Maybe someone, like this newspaper, should list current serving politicians who authored, passed and supported the Patriot Act, so citizens can vote these people out of office. The Patriot Act was wrong in 2002 as it is today. Too much power ceded to the government for so called "national security".
I hope the Supreme Court upholds this decision; in doing so, start to dismantle the Patriot Act and its making the Bill of Rights look like swiss cheese.
Not only should this portion of the Patriot Act be made illegal; all of it should be.
While a small victory; it is a victory for our Constitutional rights which were being abridged by Congress and the President of the United States.
The question, why has it took nearly 15 years for a court to rule in favor of freedom and privacy? I know, Edward Snowden who is reviled as as traitor, is more and more looking like a patriot.
Maybe someone, like this newspaper, should list current serving politicians who authored, passed and supported the Patriot Act, so citizens can vote these people out of office. The Patriot Act was wrong in 2002 as it is today. Too much power ceded to the government for so called "national security".
I hope the Supreme Court upholds this decision; in doing so, start to dismantle the Patriot Act and its making the Bill of Rights look like swiss cheese.
77
The Patriot Act and other changes to America's moral standing are Bin Laden's victory, in a sense.
Terrorism is often done as a provocative act, to elicit a response that tends to confirm the terrorist's caricature of the institution they attack.
Terrorism is often done as a provocative act, to elicit a response that tends to confirm the terrorist's caricature of the institution they attack.
2
Why is it I think the spooks will find some easy walk around? I'm sure they've anticipated this possibility and already have alternate tortured interpretations of other laws that will give them pre textual reasons to continue to do whatever they want.
If it takes another decade to review their new reasons and activities(if anyone even knows of the reasons or activities) as it did to review this law, they're good to go until retirement age.
If it takes another decade to review their new reasons and activities(if anyone even knows of the reasons or activities) as it did to review this law, they're good to go until retirement age.
4
Of course section 215 is illegal. We conveniently swept that fact under the rug when the un-Patriot Act was enacted because we were so overcome with fear. After losing 3000+ lives in one attack, that fear is justified.
Conditions have changed. Our original target, al Qaeda, has been essentially dismantled as a top down hierarchy. Our enemies now use social networking as a primary means of command and control. They know the phones are tapped.
We should apply our counter measures directly at potential adversaries. Notice that the most recent attacks here and in Europe happened right under everyone's noses. The excuse is always the same. "So and so was always such a nice boy. We had no idea that he would do such a thing." Someone did know and that is what we should be looking for, not the phone calls of all Americans.
Conditions have changed. Our original target, al Qaeda, has been essentially dismantled as a top down hierarchy. Our enemies now use social networking as a primary means of command and control. They know the phones are tapped.
We should apply our counter measures directly at potential adversaries. Notice that the most recent attacks here and in Europe happened right under everyone's noses. The excuse is always the same. "So and so was always such a nice boy. We had no idea that he would do such a thing." Someone did know and that is what we should be looking for, not the phone calls of all Americans.
8
But, then you would hear the usual mantra, "That's racism!" "That's profiling!" "That's abuse!" "That's hate!" "That's discrimination!" and so on.
We've lost more liberties in the name of safety than many who touted for those regulations probably ever imagined...ooor not.
Who feeds those fears to make the people accept going against the rule of law, or making the people feel we need to be caged?
You can blame the GOP or blame the Democrats. Remember though, if you want to exclusively blame the Bush admin for writing this monstrosity, you also need to remember it didn't diminish at all under the rule of the Progressives/Democrats when they controlled the House and Senate and Presidency. In fact, it broadened! Put the blame where it belongs..the current office holders who did not change it.
I'm also concerned about this FISA panel of judges. The NSA is under the WH authority and they get to rule over things we know nothing about, but removes our rights. There is too much power there. Where's the balance?
There are too many agencies being created, or powers broadened under one branch, namely the Executive Branch. A quick google search on the Federal Executive Branch shows how vast and entrenched it is. But those in power never want to give up power, so it will continue.
I'm not advocating for no rule of law, just less of it within the bounds of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We've lost more liberties in the name of safety than many who touted for those regulations probably ever imagined...ooor not.
Who feeds those fears to make the people accept going against the rule of law, or making the people feel we need to be caged?
You can blame the GOP or blame the Democrats. Remember though, if you want to exclusively blame the Bush admin for writing this monstrosity, you also need to remember it didn't diminish at all under the rule of the Progressives/Democrats when they controlled the House and Senate and Presidency. In fact, it broadened! Put the blame where it belongs..the current office holders who did not change it.
I'm also concerned about this FISA panel of judges. The NSA is under the WH authority and they get to rule over things we know nothing about, but removes our rights. There is too much power there. Where's the balance?
There are too many agencies being created, or powers broadened under one branch, namely the Executive Branch. A quick google search on the Federal Executive Branch shows how vast and entrenched it is. But those in power never want to give up power, so it will continue.
I'm not advocating for no rule of law, just less of it within the bounds of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
For those hoping that the Court would rule that bulk data collection is unconstitutional, it didn't happen. The Second Circuit merely decided that such data collection violated the wording of the Patriot Act. Like the pending challenge to health care, this decision was about the meaning of a few words in a long law. This means, by the way, that it doesn't defend the acts of Mr. Snowden. That, apparently, is for another day.
3
Whether or not the program is legal is almost beside the point. The program is morally wrong; an offense against the purported foundations of this country. Sadly, that law legalizes it means that law must now illegalize it in order to bring reality in to accord with principle.
7
Alexander Abdo is correct - this will spur Congress into action. They will rewrite it so it does cover the telephone sweeps, and most likely emails, as well. Who cares about rights and Constitutions when we're chasing terrorists?
1
Gathering "metadata" does not constitute an invasion of privacy. This panel of three judges will have blood on its hands after the next mass-casualty terrorist attack. Let's hope Congress and the Supreme Court exhibit better judgment.
1
I happen to disagree with you, Gary, but the point is moot because the judges never reached that question. All they decided is that the Patriot Act does not authorize bulk meta data collection.
1
Dont worry, congess critters fix the loophole with their latest "fix" for Patriot Act. The fix is to enable Govt Agencies do what they want, when they want, how they want, without being called Traitors of the Constitution.
4
The NSA has become a bloated government jobs program. Nothing more, nothing less. Based on the number of people it employs and the results it achieves this group should have been disbanded a long time ago. We've thrown billions of dollars at an organization that has had zero successes all while trampling on our civil rights. It's time to take the remaining oar from this one-oar boat.
11
Of course the faithless and traitorous Republicans want this program to be extended as is. Its a huge disappointment that Obama did not follow through on his campaign rhetoric and promises regarding civil liberties. The US Government sold out its people and threw our liberty and right to privacy in the trash as if every drop of American blood shed to win those rights is worthless and meaningless. This is sickening to learn that the government was functioning off a very loose and baseless interpretation of Constitutional law. Americans lost liberty and privacy. The Government handed the terrorists a victory. The Government and especially faithless traitors like Mitch McConnell need to be held to account. They are no better than the terrorists they prosecute.
4
If I were a member of that three-judge panel, I would watch what I say on the phone from now on.
4
1) Since this ruling stems directly from Snowden's revelations, it would be nice if the president were gracious enough to pardon him for his acts. His ruined life is already sufficient punishment for the technical illegalities performed during his brave act for the public good.
2) Congress and the way too pliable president should not simply extend or enlarge P.L. 107-56 (no one should use the misinformation name "Patriot Act".
3) Any true "limited government" conservative, as most Republican officials hypocritically claim to be, should be fanatic supporters of my two points above. Instead, they sell out to whatever greedy, egotistic impulses run their lives.
2) Congress and the way too pliable president should not simply extend or enlarge P.L. 107-56 (no one should use the misinformation name "Patriot Act".
3) Any true "limited government" conservative, as most Republican officials hypocritically claim to be, should be fanatic supporters of my two points above. Instead, they sell out to whatever greedy, egotistic impulses run their lives.
34
No, Snowden didn't reveal the bulk collection of landline phone records. That was already known to Congress and the court system long before Snowden had any involvement at the NSA. The current ruling is saying that the previous interpretation by Congress and the court system was incorrect. It doesn't qualify as a "revelation" to anyone familiar with the Patriot Act.
Why won't Snowden say who committed illegal acts and who failed to respond when confronted with evidence of illegal acts? He will not because he cannot. His is was a policy dispute, but also a betrayal.
Although many people side with him on the metadata program, Snowden's irresponsibility didn't stop there. Snowden stole secrets far above his ability to responsibly hold, and then he put them on media he could not assure was safe, and traveled about and shared them with many others. The danger wasn't just that Snowden and his cronies weren't cleared for the data. They were never trained in how to protect the data from others who might want to steal it from them. Then Snowden gave up details about active, approved, uncontroversial programs to foreign governments.
Although many people side with him on the metadata program, Snowden's irresponsibility didn't stop there. Snowden stole secrets far above his ability to responsibly hold, and then he put them on media he could not assure was safe, and traveled about and shared them with many others. The danger wasn't just that Snowden and his cronies weren't cleared for the data. They were never trained in how to protect the data from others who might want to steal it from them. Then Snowden gave up details about active, approved, uncontroversial programs to foreign governments.
3
Your facts are incorrect. Snowden's technical ability to keep secrets exceeds probably anyone else's in the world. He worked alone, not with "cronies." He gave information to journalists, not foreign governments. He provided documentary proof of the illegality he alleged--which has now been proven true. He exposed our trusted government officials as perjurers and potential--if not actual--tyrants. Journalists determined what was in the public interest, and they did a Pulitzer Prize winning job of it. They have also protected their cache admirably.
You don't need to recognize courage, and you don't need to thank him. But you should stop spreading falsehoods.
You don't need to recognize courage, and you don't need to thank him. But you should stop spreading falsehoods.
7
Who will be held responsible for this violation of our civil liberties?
27
Who will be held responsible for last winter's snow?
1
It's refreshing when we libertarians and the ACLU agree on an issue such as in this case. Let's all fight hard to stem this governmental abuse of our privacy rights!
10
The 2nd Circuit is a distinguished court. Now you know why the spooks didn't want their strained interpretation of the Patriot Act reviewable to by any court - their lawyers doubtlessly told them they were on thin ice.
The Patriot Act is bad enough but intelligence agencies that think they have a God given right to play fast and loose with the Constitution are dangerous. Never forget "the ends justify the means" was Lenin's motto and has no place in the executive branch of government - yes children the spooks are under the ostensive control of the President (God help us).
The Patriot Act is bad enough but intelligence agencies that think they have a God given right to play fast and loose with the Constitution are dangerous. Never forget "the ends justify the means" was Lenin's motto and has no place in the executive branch of government - yes children the spooks are under the ostensive control of the President (God help us).
43
Before you get to exited. Don't forget that Obama is in favor of MORE data collection not less. Clinton also supported expanded subservience. The idea that this will lead to an unraveling of the programs has to basis considering the current members of Congress and the Presidents views.
Funny, how those who worship Government as their God, somehow think that expanding Government powers would not lead to expanded use of Government powers directed at the US population. A Government powerful enough to give you everything is also a Government that without hesitation will spy on you.
Funny, how those who worship Government as their God, somehow think that expanding Government powers would not lead to expanded use of Government powers directed at the US population. A Government powerful enough to give you everything is also a Government that without hesitation will spy on you.
9
Greatest expansion of government in memory was the Republican Party creation of America's biggest ever bureaucracy, DHS.
State worship is a bipartisan affair, only one side gives lip service to opposition to same, but team red is every bit as responsible for expansion of government power as team blue.
State worship is a bipartisan affair, only one side gives lip service to opposition to same, but team red is every bit as responsible for expansion of government power as team blue.
1
It's about time. Collecting citizens' phone records was wrong from the start. As a political science professor, I told my students so. I suggested that some day in the faraway future, the courts may even do their job.
No crystal ball is needed. Just a clear understanding of the basic words in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the nation's laws.
Someday we may even have government officials who actually follow the laws on a regular basis, and not just when it suits them.
I feel no joy. Justice takes so long.
No crystal ball is needed. Just a clear understanding of the basic words in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the nation's laws.
Someday we may even have government officials who actually follow the laws on a regular basis, and not just when it suits them.
I feel no joy. Justice takes so long.
164
"Someday we may even have government officials who actually follow the laws on a regular basis, and not just when it suits them."
A few dozen, better yet a few hundred, NSA bureaucrats executed for official misconduct just might get them to follow the laws.
A few dozen, better yet a few hundred, NSA bureaucrats executed for official misconduct just might get them to follow the laws.
1
When it takes 13+ years (from 10/26/2001) to review a law the old saw of "Justice delayed is justice denied" takes on real meaning.
4
I think of the billions of tax dollars absolutely wasted. Both the criminals in Boston and in Texas started giving hints on social media before their crimes. Both were followed by our "security services" and there was absolutely no counter measures taken. Apparently all this massive data collection is useless.
23
It is not useless. The usefulness of these programs, however, is not for their claimed purpose of protecting citizens. Their usefulness is in driving citizens to censor themselves and in providing the basis for a future crackdown on dissent.
11
Members of Congress and the President (who sadly supports the existence of the Patriot Act now) have presented the issue to Americans either as live in fear of attack without letting us invade your civil liberties or let us invade your civil liberties so that Americans can have an expectation of safety from attack. The justification becomes live in fear or give the government wholesale rights to ignore the Constitution and skirt the judicial process through Courts which hide its activities from the public. That's known as being a "tool of government."
The Patriot Act permits government to do what secretive and oppressive governments do quite well: spy on citizens usually to prevent them from exercising their civil liberties. Some will say that Americans have a way to prevent such usurpation of their rights, through the Courts. By the Court that interpret and apply the Patriot Act are not open to the public, and appear on the surface to an open door to the security agencies who apply to it for approval.
This decision will invite and foster a public debate, probably because the Supreme Court will get involved and legal issues will be briefed. Public debate about secretive government practices is a necessity if democracy is to flourish. Information not known before will become public, and that, too will benefit democracy. But, in the end, a Patriot Act which fosters and permits unreasonable invasions of privacy is a fundamental error in a democracy.
The Patriot Act permits government to do what secretive and oppressive governments do quite well: spy on citizens usually to prevent them from exercising their civil liberties. Some will say that Americans have a way to prevent such usurpation of their rights, through the Courts. By the Court that interpret and apply the Patriot Act are not open to the public, and appear on the surface to an open door to the security agencies who apply to it for approval.
This decision will invite and foster a public debate, probably because the Supreme Court will get involved and legal issues will be briefed. Public debate about secretive government practices is a necessity if democracy is to flourish. Information not known before will become public, and that, too will benefit democracy. But, in the end, a Patriot Act which fosters and permits unreasonable invasions of privacy is a fundamental error in a democracy.
87
I agree. The Government including Obama are faithless traitors that arbitrarily gave away the civil liberties and privacy that our forefathers shed their blood for.
2
N.S.A.'s scaremongering will now turn into high gear telling us how many terror attacks they have prevented without of course being specific.
If the N.S.A. really believe "systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk" is required to safeguard America from terror attacks then there is something fundamentally wrong with the agency. Likewise if courts and politicians believe drag-netting is the required method for catching bad guys then they are not doing their jobs.
....and stop trying to shoot the messenger! That Snowden had to ask for asylum in Russia of all places is shameful to the US government.
If the N.S.A. really believe "systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk" is required to safeguard America from terror attacks then there is something fundamentally wrong with the agency. Likewise if courts and politicians believe drag-netting is the required method for catching bad guys then they are not doing their jobs.
....and stop trying to shoot the messenger! That Snowden had to ask for asylum in Russia of all places is shameful to the US government.
23
The interesting thing is that most thinking Americans (those that follow and keep up with current events) knew this was illegal as soon as they became aware of it- the politicians, lobbyists, DC Villagers and lapdogs of the press either feigned ignorance of the law or supported it.
Our Constitution is written in fairly unambiguous English and is our basic law. The poorly named Patriot Act should have never been brought to a vote and a lot of politicians have a lot of explaining to do- starting with the Harvard Educated former University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Our Constitution is written in fairly unambiguous English and is our basic law. The poorly named Patriot Act should have never been brought to a vote and a lot of politicians have a lot of explaining to do- starting with the Harvard Educated former University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
24
Herein we have the key conflict. Not between an executive branch seeking to overextend its authority in the face of perceived crisis. We have had that many times, such as Jackson and the Cherokee, Lincoln and the writ of habeus corpus, FDR and the the internment, and LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin. The key conflict here is between the secret FISA court which approved the authority versus the public court which rules against.
Yes, we need secrets. But do we need secret courts interpreting secret laws and any public disclosure is prosecutable? How British. (as in the Official Secrets Act).
Democracy is not a secret process. We can recognize a Uniform Code for the military, but when we shroud millions of key civilians in a cone of silence we distort both the civilian courts and the political process. In 2004 the NYTimes withheld this story until after the election for fear not that the paper would be prosecuted, but that the Times would seem to favor Kerry if the facts were revealed in a timely manner. Unlike the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
If this was indeed an illegal extension of the Patriot Act, keeping the secret is a form of complicity. Intimidation of phone companies and whistleblowers, massive expense, development of software that can be used elsewhere, and spying on Occupy and environmental protestors. These are among the many costs of secrecy.
Yes, we need secrets. But do we need secret courts interpreting secret laws and any public disclosure is prosecutable? How British. (as in the Official Secrets Act).
Democracy is not a secret process. We can recognize a Uniform Code for the military, but when we shroud millions of key civilians in a cone of silence we distort both the civilian courts and the political process. In 2004 the NYTimes withheld this story until after the election for fear not that the paper would be prosecuted, but that the Times would seem to favor Kerry if the facts were revealed in a timely manner. Unlike the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
If this was indeed an illegal extension of the Patriot Act, keeping the secret is a form of complicity. Intimidation of phone companies and whistleblowers, massive expense, development of software that can be used elsewhere, and spying on Occupy and environmental protestors. These are among the many costs of secrecy.
17
Why did it take all these years???
10
So, when will it stop (collecting of data) and what proof will be provided that all data collected is destroyed and not available to be used against anyone?
6
I think NYT comments should make it a prerequisite to read a court decision before they comment on it. If that were the case with this 97 pager http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf
It would save us all a lot of grief.
It would save us all a lot of grief.
1
Of course this now means that our President Mr. Obama, can finally take a position, that recognizes this ruling, and further he can through executive order, cause the NSA, and all other government agencies, currently engaged in these unconstitutional and Bill of Rights violations, to immediately cease their activities in this regard, and he can also order the supervised public destruction of all illegally gained records of Americans, domestic and international.
Hope springs eternal ...
Hope springs eternal ...
3
The conclusion to this article puts blame for the NSA's bulk collection policy on Mitch McConnell. Mr. McConnell bears plenty of blame. But the single individual most to blame is President Obama, who has never wavered from defending and using NSA bulk data collection as part of his national security policy. Let's not give the President a free ride just because we generally like him.
4
michjas
"...generally like him."?
Not true. as of today, O's approval rating is 47%
"...generally like him."?
Not true. as of today, O's approval rating is 47%
2
Not all of us like him; I didn't vote for him!
1
Good. No let's have jail time for all still violating this finding.
3
It is about time a federal court ruled that Section 215 does not pass constitutional muster.
7
Not only has this violation of or basic rights now been found illegal in federal court, it is totally ineffective in preventing attacks on American soil. Probably the NSA was too busy monitoring protesters in Baltimore, ex-girlfriends calls and teens selfie nudes to identify an actual attack. This is a trillion boondoggle sold to our govt. by consultants and contractors without any accountability.
8
It is time to end mass spying, repeal the Patriot Act, exonerated Snowden and prosecute the war criminals in our country..you know who they are.
Any member of Congress who does not vote to repeal Patriot act is violating his or her oath to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic and so is any President that allows it to be extended. No excuses!
Any member of Congress who does not vote to repeal Patriot act is violating his or her oath to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic and so is any President that allows it to be extended. No excuses!
15
Lets not overreact: USA is far from a police state. I am not condoning govt surveillance that are outside of the legal transparency, but some alarmists make it sound like we are heading toward something like gestapo or gulag. The most important thing is that it is done within a legal framework with court supervision...which we know Obama agrees with. Dont forget that the best thing about Obama is that he is no Bush...
1
Hmnn... I'm convinced he is no different than Bush, and he was foisted on the American people by the corporate owners of America.
Incidentally, I supported him twice, much to my chagrin.
Manage peoples perception and anything is possible.
Incidentally, I supported him twice, much to my chagrin.
Manage peoples perception and anything is possible.
1
"The most important thing is that it is done within a legal framework..."
Kind of like slavery?
Kind of like slavery?
1
Maybe if the NSA would start heeding the 4th amendment once again, the narrowing of their focus might have a better chance of thwarting attackers like the two in Garland TX a few days ago.
5
This is good news for card carrying ACLU members and civil libertarians in general. Although the court now ruled that bulk phone data collection is illegal, I wonder what the Utah Data center will do with all of their programs, employees, technology & intelligence which is designed to monitor data. Phone calls are just one type of data. What about illegally scooping up private citizen's private emails, Internet searches, Twitter and Facebook accounts, as well as all types of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'. Bulk phone calls are only one segment of personal information which the NSA illegally tapped into in order to fight against global terrorism.
9
It is wonderful to see so many responses acknowledging the importance of Edward Snowden's whistle-blowing--too poor a term for his courage and self-sacrifice. He is indeed a hero and I hope that he will soon be allowed to return home with honor.
That would be a good issue to raise with Hillary Clinton in candidate forums, as well as with Bernie Sanders.
That would be a good issue to raise with Hillary Clinton in candidate forums, as well as with Bernie Sanders.
22
I'm going to vote for the first presidential candidate that says Snowden will be able to come home after he or she wins.
10
No doubt Congress will hurriedly pass a new law legalizing this grotesque practice, one of many that grew out of the inability of our "leaders" to meet the terrorist threat in ways that don't eviscerate the legal protections that our human rights once were guaranteed. No doubt most Americans will shrug and assume since they're not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. The sad fact is that this destruction of the essence of America, in the name of security, is the best our so-called protectors can manage. But who will protect us from our protectors?
104
You can be totally private or totally dead -- choose one.
After President Clinton dismantled some of our intelligence, we missed the fact that a bunch of creeps were taking lessons in our flying schools and not caring if they knew how to land. Then 19 of them flew our planes into our buildings.
We'll never see the next one coming. I hope it is not the big flash of light and wondering why there's a big hole where Time's Square and the center of Manhattan used to be.
After President Clinton dismantled some of our intelligence, we missed the fact that a bunch of creeps were taking lessons in our flying schools and not caring if they knew how to land. Then 19 of them flew our planes into our buildings.
We'll never see the next one coming. I hope it is not the big flash of light and wondering why there's a big hole where Time's Square and the center of Manhattan used to be.
2
Hmm, interesting choice. I choose to be strong privacy rights and have government and business respect that choice. You can choose to be totally dead if you like. I don't really consider that a choice with a future.
1
Personally, it's zombies for which I harbour irrational fear. Mostly because I don't like the smell of rotting meat.
1
As I remember it, Tom, we had developed a lot of intelligence about not only the pilots, but also about the seriousness of the threat. But there was an insurmountable "wall" between the CIA and the FBI as far as sharing information goes, (although some were finding ways to cooperate with each other). Just as important, when Richard Clarke went to the Texas ranch to try to get President Bush's attention, saying "Bin Laden is determined to strike within the United States", neither Bush nor Rice took him seriously enough and just sent him on his way.
So the issue really has to do with what you do with the information you have and how you will allocate finite resources.
The NSA collects information on us all, the just and the unjust alike. I want to know my government is doing everything it can to keep its citizens from harm at the hands of our very real enemies. But I am not the enemy, and I should never become collateral damage in this "war on terror". Nor should anyone else. Mistakes, I'm sure, have been made.
So the issue really has to do with what you do with the information you have and how you will allocate finite resources.
The NSA collects information on us all, the just and the unjust alike. I want to know my government is doing everything it can to keep its citizens from harm at the hands of our very real enemies. But I am not the enemy, and I should never become collateral damage in this "war on terror". Nor should anyone else. Mistakes, I'm sure, have been made.
1
Thanks to the ACLU, I feel my $10 monthly contributions is well spent.
Thanks to Edward Snowden for revealing the truth when the US government consistently lies.
As an ACLU monthly contributor, I do not have an objection to the accumulation of telephony metadata. I think it necessary to have this data available for search when warranted.
The problem is not the existence of the data, it is the misuse of the data.
Any use of this data should be limited to searches conducted under a real warrant duly authorized by a real public court upon presentation of real evidence, not a sham FISA court.
The FISA court should be disbanded.
Thanks to Edward Snowden for revealing the truth when the US government consistently lies.
As an ACLU monthly contributor, I do not have an objection to the accumulation of telephony metadata. I think it necessary to have this data available for search when warranted.
The problem is not the existence of the data, it is the misuse of the data.
Any use of this data should be limited to searches conducted under a real warrant duly authorized by a real public court upon presentation of real evidence, not a sham FISA court.
The FISA court should be disbanded.
48
Let Eric Snowden back into the United States, exonerate him, Obama please pardon him. He should be free!
49
I had long thought that the "Patriot Act" was an American version of German legislation that was quickly put through the Reichstag in 1933 in the wake of the Reichstag fire; that legislation, in effect, killed democracy in Germany and replaced it with a the mechanisms of a police state.
This is especially the case because of the various writings of the Project for the New American Century ("PNAC"), a right-wing cabal including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, which called for a "Pearl Harbor-like event in the U.S. homeland" as the "trigger" for "establishing a Western-style democracy in the Arab Middle East." This, was the history of the CheneyBush administration so amply shows, was ignoring eight months of steady warnings of what was to become 9/11 (so that NOTHING was done to prevent it) and then using it as the rationale for attacking a nation that had nothing to do with it--Iraq--to seize control of its oil. There was a bit of a detour into Afghanistan for window-dressing, but Osama Bin Laden was never caught and American troops were diverted to the real "prize," Iraq.
The very party that lost our national reputation and bankrupted the treasury still want to reauthorize Section 215 to keep control over this country.
If this nation wants to follow the GOP and PNAC in copying Germany's 1933-45 playbook, it can only end badly. Fix it before it's too late.
This is especially the case because of the various writings of the Project for the New American Century ("PNAC"), a right-wing cabal including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, which called for a "Pearl Harbor-like event in the U.S. homeland" as the "trigger" for "establishing a Western-style democracy in the Arab Middle East." This, was the history of the CheneyBush administration so amply shows, was ignoring eight months of steady warnings of what was to become 9/11 (so that NOTHING was done to prevent it) and then using it as the rationale for attacking a nation that had nothing to do with it--Iraq--to seize control of its oil. There was a bit of a detour into Afghanistan for window-dressing, but Osama Bin Laden was never caught and American troops were diverted to the real "prize," Iraq.
The very party that lost our national reputation and bankrupted the treasury still want to reauthorize Section 215 to keep control over this country.
If this nation wants to follow the GOP and PNAC in copying Germany's 1933-45 playbook, it can only end badly. Fix it before it's too late.
32
But I thought president pen-and-a-phone promised to repeal the Patriot Act when he was out selling his snake oil?
He didn't?
He didn't?
1
Are you suggesting that 9/11, like the 1933 Reichstag fire, was a government plot to manufacture an incident to abolish the rule of law and establish a national police state? While I applaud and concur in the court's decision finding the misnamed "Patriot Act" espionage illegal, I am not a member of the "Tin Foil Hat Brigade!"
1
I am suggesting just that--permanent political power for ONE party. I'm not a member of the "Tin Foil Hat Brigade," but someone whose family remaining in Europe was decimated by Hitler & Co.
I had a fairly typical education for my cohort--and that included learning 20th-century European history, including Hitler's rise to power. This was also discussed on excellent documentaries produced when the three national commercial networks took their public-service requirement seriously.
I learned that if it talks like the Nazis and uses some of their playbook, be VERY careful--and VERY frightened.
I had a fairly typical education for my cohort--and that included learning 20th-century European history, including Hitler's rise to power. This was also discussed on excellent documentaries produced when the three national commercial networks took their public-service requirement seriously.
I learned that if it talks like the Nazis and uses some of their playbook, be VERY careful--and VERY frightened.
1
Have the NSA work within the boundaries of the law. If not, then disband the agency.
10
Translation: Roberts is the swing vote on a 5 to 4 coming up.
3
There is hope for US democracy after all.
The next presidential election will determine this issue.
Vote like your way of life depended on it. It does.
The next presidential election will determine this issue.
Vote like your way of life depended on it. It does.
25
We always do and it, happily, never does.
1
The 'Patriot Act' is the greatest oxymoron of our times. There is nothing patriotic about spying on the citizenry.
108
All title of legislation are designed to mislead and misdirect.
1
Phone CALL records? Who cares about calls? The court should be focused on how we really communicate, or will soon be. If you ask teenagers, they aren't making calls, they're texting, facebooking, instagramming, twittering, tindering, youtubing and vining.
The phone call is an intrusive, quaint relic of a bygone era.
The phone call is an intrusive, quaint relic of a bygone era.
2
Metadata. That's everything and more. All stored FOREVER. it's cheaper to store than erase.
1
Congress will authorize bulk collection. Great Britain recently did much the same, and more. The halcyon days of privacy, at least as that term was understood, felt, really, in the days before the internet existed, gone, those days are over. The shockwave of Edward Snowden's courageous act had some effect, but not nearly that which it should have. The new reality is that Millennials have grown up without real privacy. They don't really want what they can't imagine having existed. Politically, real privacy is a dead issue.
The NSA won't stop, anyway. Its leaders have lied to Congress under oath, denying over and over again that which the Snowden disclosures revealed without so much as a slap on the hand. No prosecutions. No investigations. No trials. No convictions. And so as a practical matter of modern spycraft, perjury, secret FISA courts, secret FISA court decisions, lies, these deceptions all reign pretty much supreme because we have by our acts said they're okay..
The NSA won't stop, anyway. Its leaders have lied to Congress under oath, denying over and over again that which the Snowden disclosures revealed without so much as a slap on the hand. No prosecutions. No investigations. No trials. No convictions. And so as a practical matter of modern spycraft, perjury, secret FISA courts, secret FISA court decisions, lies, these deceptions all reign pretty much supreme because we have by our acts said they're okay..
15
So, while we are too busy working for a pittance, getting smaller by the day, we abdicate the running of our affairs to our Public Servants, people who have consistently proved dishonest, lying, greedy, and murderous.
The question is: are we man enough to change things for our children who are, as of now, on a one way ticket to slavery and degradation?
The question is: are we man enough to change things for our children who are, as of now, on a one way ticket to slavery and degradation?
8
Mulefish
You might be heard better if go out and vote for Miliband today--instead of ventilating across the Pond.
You might be heard better if go out and vote for Miliband today--instead of ventilating across the Pond.
1
Answer to your question: No America is not "man enough." Monied interests have effectively castrated the American public and the vast majority just shuffle on and say "Yes, Sir." It is a country more and more pathetic and lost and the percentage who care, commenters here and a couple dozen more, are just, as my Dad used to say, "peeing in the wind."
1
woe to the congress that makes a law to do it. it would be the very ones that go around waving the constitution.
to my friends who dread we are on the threshold or worse of a police state i will say we still have the courts. whether we can really regulate our shadow is another matter.
to my friends who dread we are on the threshold or worse of a police state i will say we still have the courts. whether we can really regulate our shadow is another matter.
1
The NSA and the other intelligence agencies should simply ignore any attempt by the Courts to compel them to stop doing the things that they do. The foundation of our legal system is a document from the 18th century, one that is hopelessly out of date with our modern world, and unfortunately the Courts must choose to adhere to the stipulations of that document and all of the precedential decisions that have followed from it over the past 225 years. That's their job. Meanwhile, the permanent ineptitude of our legislative branches, the only bodies legally authorized to make any reforms, is the ultimately the product of that flawed document, and that virtually guarantees that the US system will forever be beset by inertia and incapable of keeping pace with a forever changing world. Unlike the Justices, the men and women of the intelligence agencies must actually take responsibility for the safety and security of the country every day and if the judicial branch wants to interfere with that process then it is time to destroy the power of the judicial branch have any say about what they can and cannot do. "Judge Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it".
You throw out this document, The Constitution.
Maybe you want to read what protects the things most Americans value.
I suggest you move to Somalia where you can rediscover what is worth valuing in terms of citizens rights.
Good Luck in Mogadishu, Somalia.
Maybe you want to read what protects the things most Americans value.
I suggest you move to Somalia where you can rediscover what is worth valuing in terms of citizens rights.
Good Luck in Mogadishu, Somalia.
1
The leaders of these "intelligence agencies" don't take responsibility for anything and they are NOT ABOVE THE LAW!
3
Wouldn't it be better to make changes in the way members of the three branches of government are selected for office (finance reform, open primaries, uniform procedures for appointing and confirming judges, etc.) than to throw out the system itself?
On the surface, it looks like you are advocating government by a small set of unelected technocrats, but that doesn't make much sense. I've often wondered whether a parliamentary system would be more effective, but surely it, too, requires a strong judiciary and would not work with an independent intelligence bureaucracy that could run amok whenever it felt the need to take charge.
On the surface, it looks like you are advocating government by a small set of unelected technocrats, but that doesn't make much sense. I've often wondered whether a parliamentary system would be more effective, but surely it, too, requires a strong judiciary and would not work with an independent intelligence bureaucracy that could run amok whenever it felt the need to take charge.
1
How can it be that collection of metadata by law enforcement is illegal, yet collection of the same - and even more detailed - data by Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Verizon, etc., etc., is just business as usual?
I would much rather the information be in the hands of those trying to prevent crime than those that make gazillions of dollars selling my data so that I can receive more and more spam, pop-up ads, and spurious phone calls. At least with law enforcement, misuse of that data could lead to prosecution of the nefarious.
I would much rather the information be in the hands of those trying to prevent crime than those that make gazillions of dollars selling my data so that I can receive more and more spam, pop-up ads, and spurious phone calls. At least with law enforcement, misuse of that data could lead to prosecution of the nefarious.
5
You agreed to the collection by Facebook, Google, etc. Stop using them or opt out when allowed. Perhaps if the Patriot Act required all people to agree to have their data collected, you could opt in there.
1
Difference:
When you sign terms and conditions with FB etc. you grant them this access to your private info.
When you sign up with AT&T or other phone carrier or ISP you are not agreeing to share your info.
Kinda simple but big difference.
When you sign terms and conditions with FB etc. you grant them this access to your private info.
When you sign up with AT&T or other phone carrier or ISP you are not agreeing to share your info.
Kinda simple but big difference.
Chris - GREAT POINT !!
Thank God for the bravery and patriotism of Edward Snowden for risking his life to unlock the courtroom doors so that this victory was finally made possible.
The government has for years been successfully denying us legal standing to sue in order to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitutional rights until Edward Snowden gave us the evidence that helped the ACLU to prove that illegal activity had indeed been taking place.
The fact that the government DENIED and LIED to the COURTS for YEARS to deny us our day in court is evidence of High Crimes by many in this government and they should be prosecuted all the way up to the top.
This day should be declared Edward Snowden Day, the day when the tide turned. Thanks also to the hard work and commitment of the ACLU to protect our Constitutional rights. The Government surely won't - they don't want us in their secret courts or any court.
Snowden deserves to have all charges dropped now and be given a national 'Welcome Home!' He's already suffered enough.
The government has for years been successfully denying us legal standing to sue in order to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitutional rights until Edward Snowden gave us the evidence that helped the ACLU to prove that illegal activity had indeed been taking place.
The fact that the government DENIED and LIED to the COURTS for YEARS to deny us our day in court is evidence of High Crimes by many in this government and they should be prosecuted all the way up to the top.
This day should be declared Edward Snowden Day, the day when the tide turned. Thanks also to the hard work and commitment of the ACLU to protect our Constitutional rights. The Government surely won't - they don't want us in their secret courts or any court.
Snowden deserves to have all charges dropped now and be given a national 'Welcome Home!' He's already suffered enough.
141
We have to ask ourselves. Has the urgency regarding the Patriot Act diminished? Do we as Americans have the same fear, we once did after 9/11? Under the Obama administration, America has ended the war in Iraq, and will soon end the war in Afghanistan, however our drone program, that has drawn much scrutiny from other governments, humans rights groups, legal entities, and concerned Americans may still have some respondents. These actions abroad may warrant some additional time for such a program even if privacy rights are questioned. It will be up to Congress to extend the Patriot Act, which ultimately will be the finally arbiter. But will the foreign lives lost abroad find silence from their brethren? If history is any indicator, then precaution may outweigh privacy of some sophisticated telephony algorithm.
1
There was never any urgency for the Patriot Act. It was all theater and a desire for power, an obscene power grab.
4
Can we let Snowden come back? It is too sad that he has to take shelter in a repressive regime.
20
Had the State Department not revoked his passport while traversing Russia from Hong Kong, Edward Snowden would have reached Ecuador, which had granted him political asylum. He is not in Russia as a matter of choice, but because our government chose to strand him there, rather than let him reach his intended destination.
1
Mike, Ecuador could have easily issued a travel document to Snowden that would have allowed him to travel there IF HE COULD. His flight from HK to Ecuador has to fly over airspace of many of our allies, and the plane carrying him could have been forced to land or shot down even. If I remember correctly, the flight of the Ecuadorian president for forced to land on suspicion that it was carrying Snowden as well. So, Russia seems like the least risky move for this guy.
1
This vindicates Snowden. Pardon him, Mr. President, and let him come home.
99
If it were a company, that ruling might mean something. This however is the NSA, which like it or not, is above the law. They will give the impression of following what ever Congress or the legal system requires, but will will then go further underground and continue with what they are doing.
4
If that is the case, the NSA must be abolished.
1
The age of managing our digital presence and identity is well upon us, yet the boundaries for how it is managed and who has access to it has largely been a matter left up to the individual. This advent of personal presence online has also unfortunately gone hand-in-hand with online bullying, identity theft, cyber terrorism and even cyber warfare.
The (obviously) illegal conduct by the NSA was facilitated by a lack of clear boundaries about whether our rights, freedom and privacy afforded to (most of) us in the physical world extended into the digital one.
We need legislation that protects our basic human rights guaranteed to citizens under our constitution that encapsulates this migration into the digital world that has largely already occurred. If we do not, programs like the NSA will continue to operate on the margins of legality with impunity.
The (obviously) illegal conduct by the NSA was facilitated by a lack of clear boundaries about whether our rights, freedom and privacy afforded to (most of) us in the physical world extended into the digital one.
We need legislation that protects our basic human rights guaranteed to citizens under our constitution that encapsulates this migration into the digital world that has largely already occurred. If we do not, programs like the NSA will continue to operate on the margins of legality with impunity.
90
We can only oppose what we know about.
The ongoing trick of those who wish to do as they please without any accountability is firmly linked to keeping their actions secret, under the guise that if it were mentioned, the bad guys would know what to do to avoid monitoring.
I can safely assume that the bad guys know much more about what is going on than we do, or have just assumed even more monitoring is occurring that so far is, and taking even more steps to avoid detection.
To automatically cloak everything in secrecy works great for the government and those agencies who don't want to be burdened with the pesky details of obtaining warrants from judges who may not have a rubber stamp in their hand.
We need to make a secrecy cover a much harder designation to obtain.
The ongoing trick of those who wish to do as they please without any accountability is firmly linked to keeping their actions secret, under the guise that if it were mentioned, the bad guys would know what to do to avoid monitoring.
I can safely assume that the bad guys know much more about what is going on than we do, or have just assumed even more monitoring is occurring that so far is, and taking even more steps to avoid detection.
To automatically cloak everything in secrecy works great for the government and those agencies who don't want to be burdened with the pesky details of obtaining warrants from judges who may not have a rubber stamp in their hand.
We need to make a secrecy cover a much harder designation to obtain.
Good news - in the short run. But assuredly this will end up in the Supreme Court. So... Where will Justice Kennedy vote?
Sad to think all this likely comes down to one Justice. But one can hope...
Sad to think all this likely comes down to one Justice. But one can hope...
1
But Big Brother Obama told us otherwise. A pardon along with a heroic patriotic welcome home for American citizen Edward Snowden is the kind of change that we can all believe in. Yes we can and should.
Along with Sheriff Obama ceasing to target and kill American citizens without due process.
I want my country to go back to its values overruling it's interests.
Along with Sheriff Obama ceasing to target and kill American citizens without due process.
I want my country to go back to its values overruling it's interests.
3
Yes, must have been those bits about "probable cause" and "unreasonable search and seizure."
15
As GM says, the "Snowden Effect". It's not just this country that is changing. Germany has just announced that it will no longer carry out online surveillance on behalf of the NSA. (Germany is still very miffed over the revelation that the NSA had been monitoring Angela Merkel's phone conversations).
3
It's clear now that Snowden meets the legal definition of "whistleblower." How long do we wait to hear the government re-designate him from "traitor."
126
So a court said it's illegal? Yeah, that'll stop 'em.
3
This will not stand. The court did not understand the difference between records of calls as metadata and the content of the calls themselves. Further, the court did not look at the use made of that data: To connect the dots when the patterns include those already on a watch list for their threatening posture. That restriction is already codified in the regulations governing the use of the data.
This ruling is tantamount to telling police they could not surveil a neighborhood known for its illegal activities -- drugs, gang violence -- and, connecting the dots when its members are visited by outsiders, start watching who those outsiders then lead to and the web of contacts that their activities establish. That is a fundamental procedure in uncovering, for example, illegal arms distribution networks. It does not include eavesdropping on conversations without a warrant, and following network development in telephone metadata does not include listening to their calls without similar (FISA) authorization.
This ruling will be overturned.
This ruling is tantamount to telling police they could not surveil a neighborhood known for its illegal activities -- drugs, gang violence -- and, connecting the dots when its members are visited by outsiders, start watching who those outsiders then lead to and the web of contacts that their activities establish. That is a fundamental procedure in uncovering, for example, illegal arms distribution networks. It does not include eavesdropping on conversations without a warrant, and following network development in telephone metadata does not include listening to their calls without similar (FISA) authorization.
This ruling will be overturned.
6
"This ruling is tantamount to telling police they could not surveil a neighborhood known for its illegal activities -- drugs, gang violence"
No, it isn't. Not even close.
No, it isn't. Not even close.
14
NeverLift, by your logic every single piece of available data related to an individual would be fair game for government collection. After all, my credit card transactions, my Netflix viewing, my GPS data, my smartphone app usage, my internet searches, etc., could all conceivably help the authorities "connect the dots" at some point. And the police scenario you describe requires probable cause before it is launched. The collection of metadata happens before there's any evidence of possible wrongdoing. It's collected just in case.
4
Sorry, but it was just in the paper the other day that the technology has reached a point where they can turn phone call conversations into searchable texts that computers can go through fast, fast, fast. It is no longer just a metadata world where no one actually listens to your conversation. The computers—and their bosses—will now be listening too.
1
Living in a rural area, I am always hearing about how guns are there to protect us from governmental tyranny. Of course, most of the gun owners are conservative or libertarian, but what is interesting is I never heard one peep out of them when the biggest theft of our freedoms came under the Patriot Act under a conservative, Republican president. That was the time for their rmed insurrection, if there ever was to be one.
It obviously dawned on me that gun ownership has nothing to do with any perceived freedoms; it has everything to do with control over conservatives by the GOP. It keeps the voters in line. The GOP needs this, like it needs immigration reform and suppression of voter's rights, to keep the fold contented.
The GOP brought us the Patriot Act. What more is up their sleeves?
It obviously dawned on me that gun ownership has nothing to do with any perceived freedoms; it has everything to do with control over conservatives by the GOP. It keeps the voters in line. The GOP needs this, like it needs immigration reform and suppression of voter's rights, to keep the fold contented.
The GOP brought us the Patriot Act. What more is up their sleeves?
232
Bush was small potatoes compared to Obama. He also was embarking on a war at that time, without any knowledge of what the outcome might be.
1
Tom the GOP wasn't in control of Congress when the act was written, but that's not to say it wasn't approved almost unanimously in a bi-partisan show of "support" for the new "war on terror", or that it wasn't signed into law G.W.B. You mention rural "conservatives" and "libertarians", but these people aren't represented by the GOP, I'm one of them and I think I can say that honestly.
The GOP is the party of Big Government Socialists. In the past they've called themselves fascists. They don't support individual liberty, constitutional government or, in your example, gun rights. They do support regulation, expanding government purview and greater "co-operation" between private business and government.
In short, the GOP doesn't represent the constituency you describe.
The GOP is the party of Big Government Socialists. In the past they've called themselves fascists. They don't support individual liberty, constitutional government or, in your example, gun rights. They do support regulation, expanding government purview and greater "co-operation" between private business and government.
In short, the GOP doesn't represent the constituency you describe.
2
And the Democrats have kept it going. They and the president are just as guilty of this as the GOP.
3
Goes to show that the system of Government we have may be slow, but it does self right. Just need to make sure the judiciary remains a politically free zone where the judges are not controlled by the political parties. The most heartening news out of our Government for some time.
1
HEP, this is why it is important for every citizen who cares about the actions of our government to vote in every election - every election including mid-term elections and all state and local elections down to local school board elections. Staying home because "this election isn't important" doesn't cut it in these political times. Every election is important.
If you think I'm kidding about school boards, remember who chooses what books and curriculum are used to teach our children, shaping their minds.
If you think I'm kidding about school boards, remember who chooses what books and curriculum are used to teach our children, shaping their minds.
4
I think we have to thank Mr. Edward J. Snowden, who first informed us on illegal NSA practices, as the Court rules and confirms today.
The US Government and Federal Court should cancel now his espionage's accusation and sentence, and welcome Mr Snowden at the White House as a courageous man who helped the US Justice and made stronger the Constitutional freedom rights.
The US Government and Federal Court should cancel now his espionage's accusation and sentence, and welcome Mr Snowden at the White House as a courageous man who helped the US Justice and made stronger the Constitutional freedom rights.
181
Finally, Congress can't hide behind the secret courts anymore. I hope we will now have a real discussion about trading liberty for security.
36
Hey Justice Dept let Snowden come home he is a hero for America. He caught them politicians red handed. What is even sad about it is that Americans gave away their freedom on 9-11 for the sense of security. So in all reality the terrorists won on 9-11 we lost. It is like the old saying if you give up your freedoms for the sense of security you deserve neither.
106
The USA Patriot Act is merely a result of the ineptitude of this government. It cannot effectively deal with taking out Al Qaeda due to its ties with the Sunni puppet kingdoms in which money and oil are tied in. Our condition of life is affected by this. Pull the root cause and let the USA Patriot Act die.
10
This demonstrates the extraordinary perceptiveness of the founders of our constitutional system. Let every new immigrant rejoice. We live in a system in which the rights of every single citizen prevail overt the entire power of Government.
3
It is a complicated world, in which things like the internet and cell phones and cable communications are far ahead of most rules and regulations and guidelines that exist... from the 1960's or earlier.
The significant point is that the Court found the mere gathering of raw metadata, with NO actual conversations, "illegal", rather than pursuing other claims that there has been blatant abuse of this data. Which indeed no one has been able to document, outside of a few thousands incidences over several years of actual content gathering.
I respect the idea of privacy but there is a necessity to have basic data that can help focus and expedite other efforts when needed. In this case, while some reform is needed, tossing out everything could end up with the US looking like France.
With personal experience in large database management, there is really very little way for such a huge amount of information to be scanned for any "evil" purpose in a normal time frame.
The significant point is that the Court found the mere gathering of raw metadata, with NO actual conversations, "illegal", rather than pursuing other claims that there has been blatant abuse of this data. Which indeed no one has been able to document, outside of a few thousands incidences over several years of actual content gathering.
I respect the idea of privacy but there is a necessity to have basic data that can help focus and expedite other efforts when needed. In this case, while some reform is needed, tossing out everything could end up with the US looking like France.
With personal experience in large database management, there is really very little way for such a huge amount of information to be scanned for any "evil" purpose in a normal time frame.
1
I'm no constitutional lawyer but I don't believe that a court ruling that the collection of something called "bulk metada" is illegal can be conflated with "tossing everything out."
2
So, it would be safe to say that you're personally comfortable being put on a no-fly list because you bought a Total Gym from some guy on Craigslist who later turned out to be a loon? Seriously? You're OK with that?
3
With the appropriate computer hardware it can certainly be done in a time frame that makes the results useful.
Common sense long ago reached its decision on this matter. Governments who spy broadly on its own citizens should be stopped from doing so. Most of us don't need a court to tell us that.
And how about a national petition program asking President Obama to unconditionally pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning before he leaves office?
And how about a national petition program asking President Obama to unconditionally pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning before he leaves office?
330
The chance that Obama would pardon Snowden or Manning when he has exerted so much effort to jail whistleblowers, including Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, and others, is in the range of slim to none.
5
I would like to see it but I won't hold my breath he only likes bankers and military contractors and polluters and big Pharma and Big Food. He doesn't like whistleblowers.
3
Have you forgotten that Obama cancelled Snowden's passport and sent planes to try to pick him up when he was landing in a European country? I don't believe Obama is inclined to pardon Snowden.
"...it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.”
I love this. They are essentially saying, "If you really think the citizens are OK with this, you have to pass it in full view as legislation."
Well done, Second Circuit.
I love this. They are essentially saying, "If you really think the citizens are OK with this, you have to pass it in full view as legislation."
Well done, Second Circuit.
96
What the court is "saying" is that Congress writes the laws, not the US Courts. Remember that, in the US, Federal judges are appointed, not elected.
Why would rogue agencies comply with this or any other judicial ruling that does not comport with what they want to do?
Have the done so in the past?
Remember Total Information Awareness and not-do-good Admiral Poindexter?
Have the done so in the past?
Remember Total Information Awareness and not-do-good Admiral Poindexter?
23
Good news for the terrorists. We may go down in history (written by someone else, not us, because we will no longer exist) as the only suicidal country known to man.
5
The number of terrorists caught by the system of collecting all this data is exactly 0. The NSA, FBI, and CIA can't point to a single case where a bad guy was caught because of the phone records.
There's a good reason for that, too: If the analysts don't know where to start, they'll get overwhelmed with the amount of data they have to sift through. But the work to figure out where to start is exactly what would give them probable cause for a warrant.
All this system gives them, really, is the ability to search innocent citizens, including but not limited to agents' ex-partners, anyone rising to political prominence that might challenge the program, or annoying neighbors who haven't done anything illegal.
There's a good reason for that, too: If the analysts don't know where to start, they'll get overwhelmed with the amount of data they have to sift through. But the work to figure out where to start is exactly what would give them probable cause for a warrant.
All this system gives them, really, is the ability to search innocent citizens, including but not limited to agents' ex-partners, anyone rising to political prominence that might challenge the program, or annoying neighbors who haven't done anything illegal.
128
Oh, come on. Take a breath. Can you elucidate one scenario where this decision will actually lead to the end of the USA? I mean, really, where America will actually cease to exist?
My opinion is our country is pretty darn strong.
My opinion is our country is pretty darn strong.
10
Dave - The NSA, FBI, and CIA WILL NOT point to a single case where a bad guy was caught because of the phone records, because they are too clever to give out that data.
Intelligence agencies are not politicians, they do not ever brag about their successes. If they have caught any terrorists by the collecting of this data, it is in their best interests not to reveal that as it gives the bad guys information on how to avoid being caught.
We have no idea how many terrorist plots may have been thwarted by this program, and I for one am happy to remain in ignorance because if I know it, so do those who should not know.
Intelligence agencies are not politicians, they do not ever brag about their successes. If they have caught any terrorists by the collecting of this data, it is in their best interests not to reveal that as it gives the bad guys information on how to avoid being caught.
We have no idea how many terrorist plots may have been thwarted by this program, and I for one am happy to remain in ignorance because if I know it, so do those who should not know.
5
Yes, it is illegal. This is a good step in the right direction.
One law at a time, bring America back to its people. Bring it back from the 1 percent to the 99 percent.
Next: outlaw NAFTA. Bring back Glass-Stegall. Scrap PATRIOT.
Overturn Citizen United.
One law at a time, bring America back to its people. Bring it back from the 1 percent to the 99 percent.
Next: outlaw NAFTA. Bring back Glass-Stegall. Scrap PATRIOT.
Overturn Citizen United.
267
Good list!
3
And stop TPP
6
Why overturn Citizen United?
Edward Snowden is a true American hero. None of this would have come to light without his courageous and self-sacrificing acts. Yes, we need to be safe, and yes we need to pursue our enemies with all the resources that we can muster, but we must do so lawfully. We must not turn America into a police state because we are afraid of the bad guys; we must not give up the liberties that make our country great because of fear; we must not destroy our values trying to protect them. Snowden now lives in exile in Russia, rather than here at home where he belongs; he deserves be honored, not scorned. How many of us would have been willing or able to do what he did? We owe him a huge debt of gratitude, and should right the wrong we've done him.
545
Each Presidential Candidate needs to be asked this question and a non-ambiguous answer demanded:
"If elected President, will you pardon Ed Snowden and welcome him back to his home country?"
If the answer is a weasel or a no, keep looking for another candidate.
"If elected President, will you pardon Ed Snowden and welcome him back to his home country?"
If the answer is a weasel or a no, keep looking for another candidate.
5
Edward Snowden, whatever you think of his revealing NSA's program, also publicized our most vital diplomatic secrets, intelligence activities that had noting to do with the metadata program. He committed massive treason, pure and simple, and will never be pardoned. If he returns, he should be tried for those offenses and, found guilty, punished with the maximum the law permits.
4
Neverlift you are confusing wikileaks with Snowden -- different events altogether.
6
The "majority leader" and his political allies are making no bones about which side of the Constitution's limits on government they're on...our founding fathers would Not be pleased.
11
Snowden was the main whistle blower and America sent lynching mob after him while Russia keeps him sheltered... time to apologize and let him return to his home in the so called land of the free
238
The operative words: "so called."
2
Nobody knows just how Russia keeps him sheltered.
1
@ Bill Michtom
"So-called" should also be used to modify:
whistle blower
lynching mob, and
sheltered
"So-called" should also be used to modify:
whistle blower
lynching mob, and
sheltered
2
"It is the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program, which since 2006 has repeatedly been approved in secret by a national security court."
So, the chief justice John Roberts appointed FISA Court has been making bad decisions?
Who woulda thunk?
So, the chief justice John Roberts appointed FISA Court has been making bad decisions?
Who woulda thunk?
55
They are all corrupt, faithless traitors and the people need to band together and hold the government criminals to account.
1
The Snowden Effect :)
153
We need to amend the constitution and incorporate a digital bill of rights.
28
Totally unnecessary. See the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
6
The fourth amendment, if it were enforced, would suffice.
6
I'm sure the half-wits (Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas) and the sophist (Tony Scalia) will straighten out Judge Lynch.
106
At first I agreed then I hesitated until I saw the following comment on Sophists from the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "the term sophistry has come to signify the deliberate use of fallacious reasoning, intellectual charlatanism and moral unscrupulousness."
You were right all along.
You were right all along.
6
Don't be so sure. Justice Scalia is very protective of Fourth Amendment rights, and all three of those justices agreed that attaching a GPS device to a car without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. They were sensitive to the fact that historical precedent sometimes needs to be adjusted to ensure modern technology doesn't thwart the Bill of Rights.
This case, too, involves claims that modern technology is being used in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. If the Supreme Court rules on this issue, I strongly expect that at least one conservative justice will join the liberals in finding NSA's bulk collection of phone records unconstitutional.
This case, too, involves claims that modern technology is being used in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. If the Supreme Court rules on this issue, I strongly expect that at least one conservative justice will join the liberals in finding NSA's bulk collection of phone records unconstitutional.
6
they're rushing into an emergency session as I write.
1