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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Whether some DUers like him or not [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,421 posts)57. Lying to the Supreme Court
which has relevance on whether the NSA practices were 'legal' after all:
If you blinked this week, you might have missed the news: two Senators accused the Justice Department of lying about NSA warrantless surveillance to the US supreme court last year, and those falsehoods all but ensured that mass spying on Americans would continue. But hardly anyone seems to care least of all those who lied and who should have already come forward with the truth.
Here's what happened: just before Edward Snowden became a household name, the ACLU argued before the supreme court that the Fisa Amendments Act one of the two main laws used by the NSA to conduct mass surveillance was unconstitutional.
In a sharply divided opinion, the supreme court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" in other words, that the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, which included journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance, so they couldn't challenge the law. As the New York Times noted this week, the court relied on two claims by the Justice Department to support their ruling: 1) that the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance, and 2) that the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act, so there exists some way to challenge the law in court.
It turns out that neither of those statements were true but it took Snowden's historic whistleblowing to prove it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court
Here's what happened: just before Edward Snowden became a household name, the ACLU argued before the supreme court that the Fisa Amendments Act one of the two main laws used by the NSA to conduct mass surveillance was unconstitutional.
In a sharply divided opinion, the supreme court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" in other words, that the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, which included journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance, so they couldn't challenge the law. As the New York Times noted this week, the court relied on two claims by the Justice Department to support their ruling: 1) that the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance, and 2) that the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act, so there exists some way to challenge the law in court.
It turns out that neither of those statements were true but it took Snowden's historic whistleblowing to prove it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
here you go pro. i almost never come into your threads. but, here is the jury. and
seabeyond
May 2014
#78
Writers often get paid by the word, 5 to 10 cents is common. If I were to be paid to write
A Simple Game
May 2014
#47
Did you just compare spying to what African Americans endured prior to the Civil Rights Act?
stevenleser
May 2014
#92
You make this out to be too much about the person. Just a distraction from the real wrong that is
gtar100
May 2014
#166
Maybe so (on all your assertions) , but Drake didn't have the impact Snowden has.
gtar100
May 2014
#171
perhaps this is an example of the yawning black hole between legal and ethical
azurnoir
May 2014
#25
p.s. what Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer can be safely ignored. nt
ucrdem
May 2014
#77
No, that's saying "people who mention information" are not "contacts overseas"
muriel_volestrangler
May 2014
#120
why go the route of personally insulting and judging...is that how "mature" people do things?
Sheepshank
May 2014
#157
The "he did it so I can do it" rational is childish. That's not an insult.
rhett o rick
May 2014
#160
I dont like it when conservatives pretend to be liberal and espouse their
rhett o rick
May 2014
#162
I agree that I need to work on it. I should just ignore the conservatives pretending to be
rhett o rick
May 2014
#164
Well to be fair he was China Eddie first and he was almost Ecuador Eddie but the US forced him...
L0oniX
May 2014
#79
What a childish rational. "Someone called the Pres a POS, so that excuses my similar behavior."
rhett o rick
May 2014
#140
"Evidence collected illegally cannot be used in a court." And our security state
rhett o rick
May 2014
#168
That's rich, given the lies being constantly shit on President Obama here
ConservativeDemocrat
May 2014
#104
Go and ask other leaders of the world if they thought American spying on them was
malaise
May 2014
#31
It is truly naive to think that any nation is not spying on any other nation.
MohRokTah
May 2014
#49
I deeply respect Snowden. He risked his life - for what we believe is "America."
chimpymustgo
May 2014
#56
He re-blew the whistle that had made Congress legalize what the NSA did 8 years earlier
Recursion
May 2014
#58
Doesn't make much difference whether you "like him or not". The American people don't.
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#105
So how do you gauge public opinion, oh wise one? Do you "unskew" the polls as well?
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#114
That was back in January. I have not seen a poll since the interview last night.
Jefferson23
May 2014
#118
My guess is that people who already supported him watched the show. Others had better things to do.
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#122
Turning Against Truth Tellers is One More Unconscionable Act. Thanks, malaise. nt
tea and oranges
May 2014
#112
Is this thread a joke ? It doesn't matter if DUers "like" him or not !!!!!!
Trust Buster
May 2014
#115