US judge rules NSA phone surveillance program is LEGAL

There it is folks, NSA surveillance will continue and persist until there is nowhere left to hide.

This is Breaking News and no proper details are available yet, only that US District Judge William Pauley has ruled in favour of the NSA... Apparently this is why:

Reuters reports that Judge Pauley admitted in a decision penned in the Southern District of New York court that the NSA "vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States," but that no evidence exists that the spy agency abuses this program to spy on people without terroristic ties.

How did the Land of the Free get to this? To the point where the Government is scared of everyone?

I will leave you with a few quotes from Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

RT Source

Scratch that, how do you get a Judge permanently banned from being a judge??? Please advise... They are appointed but how do you unapoint a judge?

Of course it's legal. How do you think the phone company bills you? They retain metadata. For quite some time. And that metadata is not considered to be communication. A few years back, even I could get your call metadata, no court order required.

It's a little tighter now, but not a lot. Pen register information is still not considered privileged communication. Of course, what hasn't YET come out is that they're also retaining some phone call audio for something like 120 days but I'm sure Snowden will drop that shoe eventually. Now, THAT will be a bit harder to explain. But the legal reasoning is that they don't listen to it without a warrant from the FISA court, so it doesn't count. It's called the Schrodinger's Cat argument. Until they look in the box and see what you said, it doesn't count as wiretapping.

So, was it ILlegal PRIOR to this ruling?

Looks like the NSA found some of Judge Pauley's skeletons hiding in the closet. Score one for the NSA! Looks like their eavesdropping program is working as designed.

What I don't understand is how do they know they have terroristic links, unless they snooped on them in the first place??

kalunom
So, was it ILlegal PRIOR to this ruling?

No, but many people argued it was unconstitutional and this was the basis for the court case, the headline should probably been that NSA spying is constitutional... apparently...

reply to post by iRoyalty

There are rules for that too. Have been for almost 30 years that I've known about. Why is everyone acting like they're so surprised this is going on NOW??

Do you think it's just the NSA listening, as well? Be glad the NSA follows the rules ... for the most part. It's the other people I'd be worried about if I had something to hide.

reply to post by iRoyalty


Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?

Wow good thing the judge decided it was legal. Because if it was declared illegal the NSA would stop the program immediately.... BWHAHAHAHA who the # are we kidding legal or illegal this type of surveillance would never stop.

Personally my only real fear of the NSA is that someday they allow regular law enforcement access to their records for everyday prosecutions. It is hard to maintain credibility on the stand when the NSA has better records of where you were and when, then you do..... This is the real fear.

nixie_nox
reply to post by iRoyalty

 

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?

See? There you go. All it takes is a new amendment. I'd recommend you socialize it before sending it off to Congress.

reply to post by Snarl


Because this is the first time we've had serious evidence that constitutional rights are being infringed upon. Snow dens revelations show how easy it is to get a court authorisation, if I remember correctly its a small form with a few small details done on a computer.

Perhaps it's for the best and it helps us but I feel there is far too much room for abuse.

The judge is sketchy:

In December 2008, Kadish pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered agent of Israel, admitting he gave classified documents to Israel in the 1980s. Prosecutors asserted that Kadish had furnished classified American secrets to Yosef Yagur, the same Israeli agent who had received secret documents from Jonathan Pollard.

In determining the sentence, Judge William H. Pauley III asserted, "Why it took the government 23 years to charge Mr. Kadish is shrouded in mystery." Pauley stated that prison would "serve no purpose" for a man of Kadish's advanced age and infirmity, opting to levy a $50,000 fine against Kadish. The prosecutor stated that the decision to accept the plea agreement was based on Kadish's cooperation and his willingness to admit wrongdoing. Prior to sentencing, Kadish faced the judge standing with the aid of a cane and stated, "I'm sorry I made a mistake ... It was a misjudgment. I thought I was helping the state of Israel without harming the United States."

reply to post by iRoyalty

Look ... I'm not being a smart ass here. This has been going on for a long time. What you do on your phone is EASILY discovered by any government that has any sophisticated collection capability. Be worried about the threat ... not the NSA. The NSA has no time for common folks like us.

...but that no evidence exists that the spy agency abuses this program to spy on people without terroristic ties.

If that clause is meant to be the reason to allow it then it would seem to be deemed true based on withholding of evidence. How can we know what a secret organization is doing.

nixie_nox
reply to post by iRoyalty

 

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?

The 4th Amendment.
The 5th Amendment.
The 6th Amendment.
The 8th Amendment.

nixie_nox
reply to post by iRoyalty

 

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?

The SCOTUS affirmed the constitutional right to privacy in their Roe vs Wade decision. The right for American women to dispose of their children by genocidal means was based on a woman's "Right to Privacy." That was the only legal justification for the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in favor of allowing women to murder their own babies, and in many many cases - all the way to term. The ruling also allowed American women to kill the child after having left the birth canal. This was all based on the American woman's "constitutional" rights to privacy.

This is a judge who gave a fine for Israeli espionage. This was his case. He gave the guy a fine.

en.wikipedia.org...

And what good is it to have the NSA snooping if it takes 23 years to bring the guy to court and then give him a fine?

Mamatus
Personally my only real fear of the NSA is that someday they allow regular law enforcement access to their records for everyday prosecutions. It is hard to maintain credibility on the stand when the NSA has better records of where you were and when, then you do..... This is the real fear.

Well, they sort of do, sometimes. You just don't see their hand in it.

Why do you think the FBI just happens to be in the right place at the right time to catch people in the act sometimes? You don't have to say how you happened to be there in that case.

TPTB know that the US will soon be in decline so they need the snoop on all the american citizens so they can keep hold to their power for as long as possible...

I think this will head to the US supreme court.

Welcome to the New Nazi system where the people have the illusion of a vote and a choice.

America is now the land of the Fee home of the Slave.