US Supreme Court refuses to let Americans challenge FISA eavesdropping law

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by vkey08

 

My only issue is that the "oversight" comes from within the Good Ol Boys group.

Oh I agree, but maybe the court was looking at the fact that it was there as one of their decision making points, I really don't know much about the FISA law or the case in general, that just stuck out as something a judge could use as a point of order.

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by vkey08

 

My only issue is that the "oversight" comes from within the Good Ol Boys group.

Oh I agree, but maybe the court was looking at the fact that it was there as one of their decision making points, I really don't know much about the FISA law or the case in general, that just stuck out as something a judge could use as a point of order.

It was considered but only to counter the respondents claims that if there petition to sue didn't get granted it would insulate the law against further judicial review. Which is logically and legally incorrect as Alito pointed out. Even so, that part of the section still leaves open for American's that can show cause that the Government's reasoning and evidence in such cases do not meet those requirements. Alito also left us a gem by placing opinion that if such is challenged, it will force the Government to disclose the method in which they arrived at in obtaining the FISA warrant.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I can search it up for everyone's amusement, but I would estimate that the majority of ATSers are aware of the FBI FOIA document that was redacted in its entirety.

I would speculate that if Uncle Sam didn't want to submit to the review required by law, it would simply yell, "National Security" and hide behind a wall of blacked out text.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Agreed BFT. I was only pointing out that there is a sense on the bench that the Justices are not too keen on the secrecy of it all and are willing to blow through the "National Security" calls if it ever made it to their court-room to find out just exactly how the Government is justifying meeting those criteria.

For the most part, the Court has taken a balanced to slightly leaning towards the Individual view on Constitutionally enumerated Rights and valid function of Government. 1st Amendment has been upheld, 2nd Amendment (twice), 4th took a hit in the Florida case (police dog case), 9/10 even saw a win with another coming down the pipes (the Voting Rights Act is as much a 10th Amendment case as can be).

What gives the US government the right to 'spy' on non-US citizens? Who made them the judge and jury? Stick within your borders, a-holes. Well, I suppose it would be fitting if other nations already had something similar implemented.

reply to post by MDDoxs


Just popping into this thread to post some historical info for those that are interested.

Wiretapping first became a tool of U.S. law enforcement in the 1890s, but the Supreme Court didn't establish its constitutionality until 1928, at the height of Prohibition.

Brief History: Wiretapping

Which also leads to this:

Olmstead vs United States 1928 Supreme Court
There are some fascinating passages in this, such as:

And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

In fact, there is even some ponderance within this piece talking about 'invasive thoughts' or psychic/ESP matters.

I do not find it surprising the court will not bend on the issue, at the same time though, I wonder why they don't just put a tap right into everyone's homes and on their person...oh wait....never mind!

I know this is wishful thinking, but what if a foreign country were to pass a law that anyone who spies on one of their royalty (whatever that means ) is an act of war against their nation. And then say there are numerous members of their royalty living in the U.S., and revealing their identity is not possible for fear of endangering the lives of the royalty.

Would that perhaps change the Judges thoughts on the matter?

Just a random thought.

I know most countries dont have royalty anymore seeing how they are the first to get killed whenever people invade.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
So...

Basically don't email or call any bad guys that aren't US citizens overseas?

Well, there's always a pen, paper, envelope and stamp.

ETA: Maybe keeping it old school is the way to go. As they beef up their telecomunications spying, they're probably ignoring the older methods of communications. Sad, but the return of the wax-sealed letter may be upon us...

edit on 26-2-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

The problem herein lies with who ,how and why defines someone to be a "bad guy". In the U.S we are deemed to be Terrorists "bad guys" if we have more then 7 days of food in the house or text in public or pay in cash, Then there is the whole patriot act. thingy that cannot be ignored.

Sure we can all shout at the top of our lungs "If you are not a bad guy,if you got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" But taking the facts about current law into consideration should we really think like that?