Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
52. There was no internet in 1979. The government was not doing massive
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:32 AM
Jun 2013

surveillance in 1979. Smith v. Maryland has only very limited, very marginal relevance to the program we are discussing now.

It will probably take a long time and quite a few decisions, but eventually, the Supreme Court will realize that this massive surveillance is incompatible with the Constitution on a number of grounds.

Not only does it deprive individual Americans of their innate right to express themselves freely with each other, but it elevates the executive branch of our government far above the others by giving the executive the authority to collect the metadata on anyone serving in the other branches as well as anyone running for office for the legislature. Thus the separation of powers is jeopardized, actually nonexistent when the executive can spy on the members of the other branches of government. So we have a constitutional crisis. A lot of people don't understand that, but that is where we are. Smith v. Maryland has nothing to do with the current situation. It dealt only with the Fourth Amendment issues and its use in convicting a criminal. It did not concern collecting information on law abiding citizens with absolutely no reason to do it other than that it is possible o do it.

In Smith v. Maryland, Thurgood Marshall dissented saying among other things:

The use of pen registers, I believe, constitutes such an extensive intrusion. To hold otherwise ignores the vital role telephonic communication plays in our personal and professional relationships, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 352, as well as the First and Fourth Amendment interests implicated by unfettered official surveillance. Privacy in placing calls is of value not only to those engaged in criminal activity. The prospect of unregulated governmental monitoring will undoubtedly prove disturbing even to those with nothing illicit to hide. Many individuals, including members of unpopular political organizations or journalists with confidential sources, may legitimately wish to avoid disclosure of their personal contacts. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 357 U. S. 463 (1958); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 695 (1972); id. at 408 U. S. 728-734 (STEWART, J., dissenting). Permitting governmental access to telephone records on less than probable cause may thus impede certain forms of political affiliation and journalistic endeavor that are the hallmark of a truly free society. Particularly given the Government's previous reliance on warrantless telephonic surveillance to trace reporters' sources and monitor protected political activity, [Footnote 3/2] I am unwilling to insulate use of pen registers from independent judicial review.

. . . .

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 442 U. S. 746, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 442 U. S. 748, filed dissenting opinions, in which BRENNAN, J., joined. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/case.html

About Thurgood Marshall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall

He was a liberal and one of the most distinguished and best Supreme Court Justices in the history of our nation.

It is not uncommon that the Supreme Court confronting new facts turns to a dissent in a former case for guidance in issuing an opinion. And the Thurgood Marshall dissent in Smith v. Maryland is an excellent dissent, well reasoned.

The facts in this massive surveillance system that permits analysis all the metadata to create a picture, a sketch of someone under surveillance and their connections are very different from those in Smith v. Maryland in which a suspect's telephone records were obtained without a subpoena. In Smith v. Maryland, the police were examining the records of a specific person without a warrant. They were not just willy-nilly examining all connections of most of the communications of masses of people. They did not have the computer capacity to handle that much information.

So I would not count on Smith v. Maryland's precedent. The facts are very different. Smith v. Maryland might carry the day in some decisions for a few years, but if we continue to have anything resembling our current constitutional government, Smith v. Maryland will eventually be overturned, I think, at least with regard to this massive surveillance.

In addition to everything I have already explained, the authorities who are collecting this so-called metadata have the ability to make a lot more sense of it by using computers than they did in 1979. I would also like to point out that in 1979, the government was not collecting the metadata of members of Congress or of members of the judicial branch of government.

This new surveillance does not just raise 4th Amendment issues but also raises 1st Amendment and other human rights issues as well as separation of powers issues. Thurgood Marshall -- as usual a visionary who saw much further than his contemporaries on the court.

Sorry if I am rambling. It is getting late.

Hear hear. Arctic Dave Jun 2013 #1
Fuck this noise Narkos Jun 2013 #2
Don't go there railsback Jun 2013 #3
Oh, I'll go there Narkos Jun 2013 #4
Maybe we should start one of those 'safe havens' railsback Jun 2013 #8
Yes it has and it's the same group of people. This thread is a perfect example of one okaawhatever Jun 2013 #12
It certainly has. Marr Jun 2013 #49
+100!! im1013 Jun 2013 #54
Thank you. sibelian Jun 2013 #60
+1000 Hydra Jun 2013 #85
+1. SammyWinstonJack Jun 2013 #89
Anyone who speaks out against a corporate/neocon owned government is automatically Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #6
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #10
Ignoring your pathetic insult, I shall begin to detail what you are obviously utterly ignoring: Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #11
Jesus dude, a blue link? Narkos Jun 2013 #13
Yes, a link to facts which you are very obvious willfully ignoring. Ignorance isn't bliss. Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #16
Blue links are not substitutes for discussion Narkos Jun 2013 #22
tell that to prosense lol nt SwampG8r Jun 2013 #73
But you didn't answer the question. You haven't stated your position at least in this thread, on the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #21
Smith vs Maryland 1979 Narkos Jun 2013 #25
I don't know you, have we met? No, it didn't take me a long time to be outraged. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #33
Okay. That's a reasonable opinion Narkos Jun 2013 #36
If only you had been reasonable first, you might be able to reply to this. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #74
There was no internet in 1979. The government was not doing massive JDPriestly Jun 2013 #52
Nicely done tk2kewl Jun 2013 #81
you sound like a troll HiPointDem Jun 2013 #45
Zombie of Hannah Bell calling another DUer a troll... SidDithers Jun 2013 #72
Shit flies fast in cyberspace railsback Jun 2013 #18
so why did you hide your search criteria, this is a edited document Monkie Jun 2013 #64
Geezus railsback Jun 2013 #80
Our OP friend has never varied from that stance, cliffordu Jun 2013 #28
funny how whenever the indefensible needs defending Rise Rebel Resist Jun 2013 #53
It's they're, not their. cliffordu Jun 2013 #63
LOL Rise Rebel Resist Jun 2013 #66
LOL . Rise Rebel Resist Jun 2013 #67
I love how some of these assclowns have decided (among themselves, of course) alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #71
Nailed it again. SPOT ON. Number23 Jun 2013 #87
+ a million. Some of us have been saying that for years Number23 Jun 2013 #34
+1 JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #68
"For some reason that thread stayed with me..." Number23 Jun 2013 #86
+1 SunSeeker Jun 2013 #41
You can ask me. I've been here for ten years. Hissyspit Jun 2013 #42
The author of that piece of crap can Go F*CK himself. Tx4obama Jun 2013 #5
-1. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #26
+1 Progressive dog Jun 2013 #78
This is very silly. cthulu2016 Jun 2013 #7
The neocons and the Bush Disaster Family, whose initiatives have resulted in the trouble we see Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #14
I think you belong over at Infowars Narkos Jun 2013 #15
Like just now when you utterly ignored my link to facts to support my position Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #17
Who's we? Union Scribe Jun 2013 #19
"We" are progressives who place a Narkos Jun 2013 #20
Ha! There isn't a "Progressive" or Democratic bone in your body or mind! n/t ReRe Jun 2013 #47
You seem very familiar with Infowars. And rational discussion here? Didn't you just contradict sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #24
? Narkos Jun 2013 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow Jun 2013 #43
Really? You seem to be ranting and insulting to me. Hissyspit Jun 2013 #44
help me understand the RW/Paulite/Commie/Chinese/Racist plot to take down the president and profit? Monkie Jun 2013 #65
Treason: the betrayal of a trust freedom fighter jh Jun 2013 #69
The author is a Ron Paul supporter, so his nutty rant geek tragedy Jun 2013 #9
You know so much about all these CTs, Right Wingers, Alex Jones et al. I've asked you before, why sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #29
It's called 'google.' nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #31
I know about google, I use it to get factual information from reliable and credible sources. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #35
I was citing accurate information about geek tragedy Jun 2013 #37
!!! Number23 Jun 2013 #40
Gee thanks, Sabrina Narkos Jun 2013 #32
Another question: Why do they spend so much time on THIS site? ReRe Jun 2013 #48
Yes, that is a good question. But in a way, it's good to air these CTs where there are informed sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #75
I guess you're right... ReRe Jun 2013 #79
You don't have to spend any time on those sites to identify these people. pnwmom Jun 2013 #55
Do you have anything except ad-hominem attacks? redgreenandblue Jun 2013 #57
The post itself was insane gibberish worthy of a Larouchie. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #70
... sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #77
How in the world can anyone, especially a liberal or dem, support the neocon/Bush/Cheney protocols? Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #23
Good question, Fire, a lot of people are asking it. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #30
Bush did it without oversight Narkos Jun 2013 #39
These are not the protocols of the Bush administration. They engaged in warrantless wiretapping pnwmom Jun 2013 #56
I know that some of it is older than the neocon project for a new American century Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #58
Why should I believe Ed Snowden, the guy who's running around to China, Russia, pnwmom Jun 2013 #59
You certainly do not have to. But perhaps you should take into consideration the reasons I've posted Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #62
Oops, wrong place. Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #61
Nice find kpete autorank Jun 2013 #38
Some peeps on DU can say anything, others not so much 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #46
''Scum,'' is a call for All That Is to make...... DeSwiss Jun 2013 #50
Seconded. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #76
It is a homage to my ancestors..... DeSwiss Jun 2013 #82
Cool. I currently live in Bern. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #83
Great link, kpete! ReRe Jun 2013 #51
You are a massive ignorant Dickhead, Don Henry Ford Jr. Cha Jun 2013 #84
Cha, you crack me up. Number23 Jun 2013 #88
It actually is a Freaking crackup, 23.. Cha Jun 2013 #90
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Treason: You are liars. ...»Reply #52