Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Government Privacy Security United States News Your Rights Online

US Supreme Court Says Wiretapping Immunity Will Stand 203

wiredmikey writes "The U.S. Supreme Court said this week it will let stand an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by privacy advocates. The top U.S. court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the NSA monitor its customers' phone calls and Internet traffic. Plaintiffs argue that the law allows the executive branch to conduct 'warrantless and suspicionless domestic surveillance' without fear of review by the courts and at the sole discretion of the attorney general. The Obama administration has argued to keep the immunity law in place, saying it would imperil national security to end such cooperation between the intelligence agencies and telecom companies. The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate case later this month in which civil liberties' group are suing NSA officials for authorizing unconstitutional wiretapping."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Supreme Court Says Wiretapping Immunity Will Stand

Comments Filter:
  • by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @05:33PM (#41612945) Journal

    Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.

    Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...

  • by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @06:07PM (#41613319)
    As much as I like the guy, this would be the thing that would get me to vote against him. If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @06:07PM (#41613321)

    Most people buy what they are told in highschool about the division of power and all that stuff. There is no need to go over it again, we all are well aware of what we were taught.

    The true purpose, at least for the last 100 years or so, is to justify the behavior of government and give it a stamp of approval. You can't argue about the constitutionality of a item that the supreme court ruled on, right? They are the 'ultimate decider', the 'supreme court' that decides on the what the constitution says and what it means.... This is all what we are taught.

    And frankly. It's all bullshit. The 'division of power' was created to purposely make government inefficient. Its setup to slow down the government so that 'the people' can keep up and not be fooled into giving up rights for this or that crisis. The public is subject to boughts of a sort of temporary insanity were some popular fear or event can be used by clever statesmen to forward their agenda to the detriment of the population's interest.

    The Supreme Court is NOT a check on the power of government. It was never designed that way and it never has been used in that way.

    The proof of what I say is this: The Supreme Court is part of the government. Saying that SCOTUS is intended to limit the power of government is like saying that congress or the president's job is to limit the power of government. It's BS. They are not going to limit themselves... they are a third of the government. You don't get to vote on them, you don't get to vet them. The member of the court is appointed through politics. They are carefully chosen and selected by their compliance and philosophical agreements with the use of government power as a means to any end. If they showed any signs of a willingness to actually limit government, or whatever, then they would of never been appointed in the first place.

    What the modern purpose of SCOTUS is for propaganda. They decide what is and what is not constitutional so you can't argue about it. You think that the indemification for wiretapping is illegal and against the constituion? Well 'Fuck you'.. the supreme court disagrees and they are right and you are wrong because they have the authority to decide these things and you do not.

    THAT is the true purpose. They exist to squash arguments and movements. They are their to help EXPAND government by providing the justification and legal basis for anything the government wants to do. That is the criteria used to decide who gets appointed by the other 2 branches. Why would 2/3rds of the government choose the final 1/3rd that has any chance or desire to fight them over what they want to accomplish?

    The check against federal power is YOU. It's YOU and your local governments. Your states and your local representatives. It's the 10th admendment. It's your refusal to obey and the refusal of the law enforcement agencies in your local areas to support and enforce out bullshit laws.

    And this is why the Federal government is working it's ass off to eliminate local law enforcement. They are busily wrapping up every bit of law enforcement they can into a nation-wide law enforcement organization. Not to make it easier to fight terror or war on crime.. but to make sure your local police force is on their side in any conflict.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @06:11PM (#41613359)


    The only issues that are even mentioned in 'debates' are ones that don't matter to the politicians (and more importantly, the ones sponsoring a candidate). This is why you will never ever hear a thing about the thousands arrested by government across the country protesting the bankers and wall street and such, yet not a single banker has been prosecuted even where outright fraud has been admitted and proven. They won't talk about the mercenaries who took over when 'active military personnel' withdrew from iraq. They won't talk about the unsustainable financial madness or anything of meaning. They speak trivially like insane twilight zone propagandists while the world falls down around their oblivious heads. They are there to toss off some platitudes and stir up wedge issues without substance that costs them nothing. Anything of real value to them is most often something that has bribed both major political parties.

    And the moderators come from the media, which exists by the whim of politicians(both in the violent domineering sense with laws as well as dependent sense with interviews and such). One cannot easily do well as a journalist if he is excluded from the source of his news. Murdoch was hurt badly when Obama excluded fox news. He had to make quite a few concessions to be included again. Sure, a true journalist who does investigation may be able to serve people interested in more than speeches and sound bites, but then how will they find an entire business that can support this sort of model of journalistic integrity? So in short, moderators have no incentive to rock the boat. They are drawn from a pool of people dependent upon the favors of our rulers. That is why it is the fringe elements of journalism that carry the standard of truth. It may share the space with many from different contradictory biases and such, but one bias that is not present is direct dependency on politicians for ones daily bread. But they are never permitted to participate with politicians in these 'debates'.

  • Re:SCOTUS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by trout007 ( 975317 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @07:12PM (#41613901)

    The supreme court is like having the referees of a game be an employee of one team. Most trials that go to the supreme court are individuals vs the government. And which side do you think the court sides with?

    I think we need a rule change. Make it like a criminal trial. In order for the government to win they need to get all 9 votes. One no and the government loses.

  • Re:SCOTUS (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @07:18PM (#41613949)

    But did he even cheat? I'm not disputing that he had sex with women other than his wife. I'm saying I think it possible, even likely Hillary knew about it and either didn't care, or didn't care that much. If she was okay with it, then who the hell cares?

  • by Githaron ( 2462596 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @07:41PM (#41614125)
    We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.
  • Re:SCOTUS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Genda ( 560240 ) < minus cat> on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:14PM (#41614763) Journal

    This is a pile of flaming bull dung!!! PEOPLE wake the fsck up. One side takes any stupid thing guaranteed to make the other side feel more righteous, or justified, or closer to their warm and fuzzy Gawd. And uses it as a wedge, a distraction from any freaking thing that actually matters!!! Abortion, Animal Rights, Gay Marriage... its all a bunch of smoke and mirrors designed to hide the fact that your representatives don't. They are bought and sold to the highest bidder. On a planet with 7,000,000,000 homo sapiens, what frigging difference does it make where Slick Willy stick his Slick Willy. Exactly NO DIFFERENCE. Its one more way to make you stop looking at the fact your pockets, pensions and portfolios have all been picked clean.

    DID ANY OF YOU NOTICE WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPT. 16th 2012? Ben Bernanke said the Fed would purchase $40,000,000,000 a month in mortgaged back securities. The same hour the price of gold and oil shot up, that was the sound of your dollar instantly being worth less. They're printing money to buy YOUR MORTGAGE, which they will turn around and invest in derivatives (have you been watching the derivatives market over the last few weeks?) And word has it that the banks will return the favor in kind by buying government bonds. This is a Ponzi Scheme, and my darlings you and I are holding the bag. I hope you all have your fall back plans well laid out. Thing are not well here.

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"