Supreme Court Disallows FISA Challenges 306
New submitter ThatsNotPudding writes "The U.S. Supreme court has rejected pleas to allow any challenges to the FISA wiretapping law unless someone can prove they've been harmed by it. 'The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was originally designed to allow spying on the communications of foreign powers. But after the September 11 attacks, FISA courts were authorized to target a wide array of international communications, including communications between Americans and foreigners. ... In this case, the plaintiffs' groups said their communications were likely being scooped up by the government's expanded spying powers in violation of their constitutional rights. Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case. In an opinion (PDF) by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that these groups don't have the right to sue at all, because they can't prove they were being spied on.'"
Further coverage at SCOTUSblog.
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The case was badly constructed (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't live with the delusion that the Supreme Court is a WYSIWYG entity. They are just a shill for the Repubmocrat Tyranny, redefining Constitutional black as Constitutional white for the last century or so. Read the Constitution, then read the SCOTUS interpretation of it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-108sdoc17/pdf/CDOC-108sdoc17.pdf [gpo.gov]
You can see it is entirely for the convenience of the government and bears little likeness to the plain english document written "for the people"
Not asking for a tin foil hat here, just asking you to adjust your horribly misplaced faith.
Should have sued under EU-US Data Treaty (Score:2, Interesting)
International Treaties have a force of law higher than FISA, and are subject to US Senate confirmation as a result.
Use that, all you need are EU citizens who reside in the US who have had their data slurped up, contrary to EU law, which is forbidden by the EU-US Data Treaty.
Re:The case was badly constructed (Score:5, Interesting)
Big Brother has a long memory. And if you come to its attention, they might not find anything on you now, but that doesn't mean they won't find something to qualify you for a never ending vacation at Gitmo sometime in the future. Recently, the government came out with the revelation that the largest threat to national security is (wait for it!!!)...
Veterans.
Think about it a moment. Who else has the training and experience in toppling a government by force of arms? Who else, especially the older veterans, would tend to view the current government situation with alarm?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The case was badly constructed (Score:4, Interesting)
Toppling a nominally civilized government by force of arms is stupid. Who should we shoot? Our local congressman? Our neighborhood cop?
A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.
The last time we threw out a government (our independence from Britain), was a bloody drawn-out affair in which our people were fighting Britain and each other, neither the loyalists nor insurrectionists had an objectively clear moral high ground, and were it not for some fortuitous flukes of happenstance, England's victory was assured.
India's independence was a bloody drawn-out affair in which one side was the clear aggressor, the people didn't kill each other, and England's ouster was inevitable - just a matter of time.
Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.
Re:FOIA, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
I asked if a not guilty verdict could be reached on the basis that the relevant law was immoral, unconstitutional, or would otherwise result in an unjust verdict.
Short answer: No.
(and this is where this becomes a rant...) So, this is the point where I get punted. The Fucking Crack Whore sitting next to me in the jury box made it deeper into the jury selection process than I. I was one of the few people in the room who appeared even remotely interested in the proceedings. Now I understand why so many fucking cases get plea bargained. I wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands a few semi-literate rednecks and a half dozen WWII vets. The first round of juror culling eliminated just about everyone that I would have wanted on a jury for me.
So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?
Peter
Re:FOIA, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
I asked if a not guilty verdict could be reached on the basis that the relevant law was immoral, unconstitutional, or would otherwise result in an unjust verdict.
Short answer: No.
Long Answer: If they said no, they lied to you (which, incidentally IS legal for them to do). There are no requirements placed on the jury that govern the validity of a verdict. The jurors can rule not guilty because the sky is blue, if they are so inclined. The jury can use any basis they want to reach a verdict. They cannot be subject to penalty, and a not guilty verdict pretty much cannot be overturned (depending on how the jursidiction in question defines double jeopardy).
Of course, if you point out the real state of the actual law you get punted yes. There's some logic to it besides pure state fascism (cops, relatives of cops, people associated w/ the legal profession etc. all get booted pretty much right off too), but it is a fucked up system.
Re:FOIA, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realize that the founders of this country were 100% Libertarians themselves and that the All Men are Created Equal thing was one of their Libertarian slogans, right? Based to a great degree on the philosophy of John Locke. If you care about rights, human rights, individual rights, natural rights, whatever you want to call it then you are speaking the language of Libertarians. That's what Libertarians are all about: positing that all humans have certain inalienable rights that a government can neither give nor take away. That just exist as a natural consequence of being human.
The whole point of Libertarianism is that people should not be treated as if one is superior to the other. Creating a level playing field without aristocrats was the whole point. That's what human rights are all about. The reason why humans are considered to have rights, equal rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was because some people realized that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do, to force them to act against their will. That no man has the right to make another man his slave no matter how righteous he may think his goals are. Whether the noble goal is to "kill all the jews, gypsies and undesirables and create a pure race" or "soak the rich" or "Only corporations are full citizens."
That all humans must be treated as equals is the whole point of Libertarianism. Not to make everyone equal, but to not favor one man over another. Not ever. If you are under the illusion that Libertarians are close allies with Republicans, either of the new 'compromise is everything' variety or the old fashioned Tea Party ones you couldn't be more wrong. If anything I would say we are more like the old style Democrats, the ones who founded the ACLU in the first place.
When it comes to class warfare we just don't care. It's irrelevant to our way of thinking. A classless society is every bit as much an ideal for Libertarians as it is for Communists or Socialists and Democrats and Republicans don't really even have goals like that. Talking about philosophy at all isn't really speaking their langauge. Pragmatism is the only language they speak.
Re:FOIA, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Penn Jillette made the same point to me when we were going back and forth on Twitter (always a productive medium). But it's a clumsy paradigm -- there are lots of ways to oppress and subjugate people that a police force and a legal system can't protect against. Protecting my body against foreign invaders or a guy with a knife isn't much good if I'm dying from pollution in the water or being thrown out of my house by a bank that doesn't actually own my property. And "private property rights"? Do we redistribute all wealth equally before we begin the libertarian experiment? Or do we turn to the billionaire standing next to the homeless mother and say to them both, "Congratulations, this is now a libertarian country. You're free to do whatever you want with your property, with no government to get in your way. Have fun!"?
Re:FOIA, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, as the saying goes, a libertarian is merely an anarchist who wants the police/army to protect them from their slaves?