ACLU Sues White House Over NSA Surveilance [Pic+]

Submitted by: QueenZira 4 years ago in

This is how an effective pushback begins...
There are 21 comments:
Male 14,331
[quote]Funny, when the wiretaps were under Bush,no one said a word.[/quote]

Ummmm where the hell were you?? Plenty of people said something.

I`ll leave you guys this gem....
"“I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining the Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war.” -- Obama 2007

Want the video?
0
Reply
Male 2,214
Funny, when the wiretaps were under Bush,no one said a word. Hmmmm. Except Glenn Beck who announced it as a nazi plot.
0
Reply
Female 355
*foundation for a claim.
0
Reply
Female 355
I`m not particularly up and up on politics or law, but if the ACLU can sue the NSA why couldn`t AT&T and verizon customers file a class action against the NSA or even their phone providers. I just looked through AT&T`s & verizon`s privacy policy, the only mention of 3rd party sharing of information that relates to gov`t/state:

We may provide Personal Information to non-AT&T companies or other third parties for purposes such as:

Complying with court orders and other legal process;

Verizon was a little more thorough
to comply with valid legal process including subpoenas, court orders or search warrants, and as otherwise authorized by law

If blanket warrants are unconstitutional, and if ATT and verizon put the law into action by using ambiguous statements in their contract ("other legal processes, otherwise authorized by law") which directly affected their customers, wouldn`t that at least be a viable foundation for a cl
0
Reply
Male 3,147
cont.

It seems that a lot of other politicans here and there in the US have the same attitude of `Illegal? So what?... things are only illegal if you`re a member of the public, not government and can ignore laws at will`.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"If they were interested in what the courts have said about surveillance without a warrant, they wouldn`t be doing this in the first place. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, none of that matters to politicians."

True, Gerry. During the Iraq inquiry here in the UK (conclusion yet to be published) one of our politicians, Jack Straw was being questioned about the fact that when he was foreign secretary he`d had legal advice that a 2nd resolution was needed otherwise the war would be illegal. His response was `well when I was the Home Secretary I was often told things were illegal, and still did them anyway.` and then said something along the lines of `it`s a grey area really, if you don`t get taken to court for it then you never know if it was really illegal`.

I find his comments absolutely outrageous, yet the press didn`t seem to jump on them at all.

It seems that a lot of other politicans here and there in the US have the same attitude of `i
0
Reply
Male 9,517
McGovern1981

"Now tell me how that`s legal again??"

Hmmm. I took it as "they" being the major parties and the media. Not "they" as in the IRS which is how I assume you took it.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]They target the Tea Party because they are full of religious nut jobs and utterly insane people like Michelle Bachman.[/quote]

Now tell me how that`s legal again??
0
Reply
Male 1,582
Why do I feel like this whole NSA situation is just suppose to be a distraction from something much bigger. Eyes on the back door.
0
Reply
Male 9,517
Forplay2k

"They target the Tea Party (not a member) because they see them as a threat to the status quo."

They target the Tea Party because they are full of religious nut jobs and utterly insane people like Michelle Bachman.

Replace "Tea Party" with "Libertarians" or "Ron Paul" and I agree with you.
0
Reply
Male 704
What we need to do is get rid of of all these old politicians, the are so intrenched in, you do me and I`ll do you. But every 4 and 6 years they get voted back in, because some idiot puts a check in the box because he/she knows the name. They target the Tea Party (not a member) because they see them as a threat to the status quo. Everyone here complain about it, but do you vote? If you do not vote nothing will change. And if you keep the Incumbents nothing will change. We need term limits,they will never vote for it themselves.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
This is really more for the Legal Eagle types, with all the technical training, but the way I understand it that`s all they need. They have admission of the program and have concrete examples of being targeted by it, which is enough for SCOTUS.

Something like this hasn`t previously happened in the Bush years. Like I said, it`s a beginning with potential to become something more.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"I have directed that CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATED TO THE "BUSINESS RECORDS" PROVISION of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be declassified and immediately released to the public."

That means the surveillance program, as a whole, is still classified. Only information specific to the "business records" provision has been declassified.
0
Reply
Male 704
Do you believe anything the NSA says? If they are giving you this to look at, then it is because they want you looking away from something else. "National security reasons" does not suspend the Constitution, You can not give them a blanket warrant because some one "maybe" doing something wrong. It took 30 more years but Orwell was right. Drones flying over us, spying on everyone.
It`s not paranoia when they are really watching everything you say or do.

The only ones they are spying on is the average person not the people they need to watch, the ones doing bad things use burner phones or cloned phones, fake emails, forums and BBS`s.
0
Reply
Male 39,571

If they were interested in what the courts have said about surveillance without a warrant, they wouldn`t be doing this in the first place. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, none of that matters to politicians.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"The program is no longer classified"

Just because info about the program has been "leaked" doesn`t mean it`s no longer classified.

0
Reply
Female 2,228
Tedgp, this suit is different for two reasons, 1. The program is no longer classified, state secrets is no longer a valid argument and 2. the plaintiffs can prove they personally were affected and thus have standing. And with 5 SCOTUS justices weighing in on what seems to be the plaintiff`s side, has the potential to go much further.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Cant sue over something that isnt illegal. Remember, even courts have to abide by the law. And all the government has to say is "National security reasons".
0
Reply
Male 9,517
I really don`t understand why everyone is so shocked. Did none of you watch the Will Smith classic Enemy of the State?

The NSA tracks you with your shoes. YOUR SHOES!
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Link: ACLU Sues White House Over NSA Surveilance [Pic+] [Rate Link] - This is how an effective pushback begins...
0
Reply