The US was built upon Libertarianism.
Where, exactly, did I say that it should be ignored?
Do you deny it? What is your rationale?
He is obviously a moron. He voted for a '3rd party candiate", most likely Ron Paul. Like most RPbots he has no concept of reality. He's a HS dropout who somehow rose high enough to get access to some info.
The FISA court judge ruled it ok
The court oversees requests for surveillance warrants against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States by federal law enforcement agencies (primarily National Security Agency and the F.B.I.).
Looks like the most relevant Supreme Court case is Clapper v. Amnesty International USA which upheld the FISA amendments by a 5-4 vote.
Majority: Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the parties' fear of being surveilled when the U.S. government targets foreign terrorists was "highly speculative."
Here is what the four judges said in dissent:
[fn3] The dissent attempts to downplay the safeguards established by § 1881a. See post, at 4 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Notably, the dissent does not directly acknowledge that § 1881a surveillance must comport with the Fourth Amendment, see § 1881a(b)(5), and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must assess whether targeting and minimization procedures are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, see § 1881a(i)(3)(A).
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union sued senior U.S. government officials on Tuesday to challenge the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's telephone surveillance program, saying it violates rights to free speech and privacy.
The suit asked the court to immediately halt the NSA's vast tracking program of telephone calls, declare the program illegal, and order the U.S. government to purge all databases of the call records.
The ACLU suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York named James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, and the leaders of the NSA, the Defense Department, the Justice Department and the FBI.
President Barack Obama has defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and Internet activity, calling it a "modest encroachment" on privacy that was necessary to defend the United States from attack.
But the lawsuit challenges the program, which the ACLU said "vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States," arguing that it violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The suit cited the government's acknowledgement that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court required Verizon Business Network Services to turn over metadata about the calls made by each of its subscribers over a three-month period as a continuation of a program that has been in place for seven years.
As a Verizon subscriber, the ACLU named itself as a plaintiff, saying the government's secret monitoring program was "likely to have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and others who would otherwise contact plaintiffs for legal assistance."
The ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and both of their foundations were named as plaintiffs.
The U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Christopher Wilson)
It was founded on it but the pendulum swung the other way when people realized that it wouldn't work. All great on paper, horrible in practice.
I am curious about something, lets take this program that you fully support and extend it to the absurd.
Lets say the government put cameras in every room, including bedrooms and bathrooms, in every house in America but they used the same rules as they do with the phone calls. They just "collect" the video streams and don't actually look at them unless they get a warrant first. Would you be ok with that? It would likely solve a hellofa lot more crimes and help them catch a shit ton more terrorists than this phone nonsense and its not really an invasion of privacy, right?
How can this be a civil liberties issue if these NSA actions have been approved by all levels of government?
Since the cat is out of the bag, and we all now know what metadata they're collecting, why shouldn't the debate be public?There is a historic and deadly serious debate here, but it should not be a public one.
This is typical of the one-sided, sensationalist conjecture that comes with "wikileaks" type pseudo journalism. This leak is fragmented, unfounded and overtly(the leaker is admittedly an "activist") "liberty biased".
How can this be a civil liberties issue if these NSA actions have been approved by all levels of government?
Our nation is a Republic, and Congress is, in all functional capacities, "the people" or "citizenry". So We've approved it, the president and the courts have approved it, now what exactly is the issue?
If it appears that your representative is not acting in the best interest of your community, you can change that.
Will "metadata" help ensure national security? YES
Does "metadata" allow for potential violations of privacy? YES
There is a historic and deadly serious debate here, but it should not be a public one.
This leak is fragmented, unfounded
here is a historic and deadly serious debate here, but it should not be a public one.
Lets say the government put cameras in every room, including bedrooms and bathrooms, in every house in America but they used the same rules as they do with the phone calls. They just "collect" the video streams and don't actually look at them unless they get a warrant first. Would you be ok with that?
I highly doubt it. Right now, you can get put to death or put into prison for life for murdering someone. There ain't "nearly zero" murders.If they do the crime rate would go to nearly zero. Aren't you worried about abuse though? I could totally see how rogue agents could abuse this kind of power.
Since the cat is out of the bag, and we all now know what metadata they're collecting, why shouldn't the debate be public?
(Speaking only of the phone metadata program, specifically)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless there is a constitutional amendment that I missed it is really hard to fuck up the translation of the above. They are seizing peoples communication records without probable cause nor a warrant which is specifically and very clearly required by the supreme law of the land.
If you believe that the actions taken by elected officials nullifies that then you must also believe that we don't have any rights because the .gov can simply say that we don't. This isn't even a slippery slope, it is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.
I hear you, but don't know that it is blatantly unconstitutional. I'd like to think that those words in the 4th amendment have been, let say, given more granularity over the years. I don’t expect you to agree, but I am merely stating that it is not black and white from my POV.
Firstly, "unreasonable". The landslide of reformative legislation since 9/11/2001 has certainly widened our definition of "unreasonable" WRT to 4th amendment and domestic security. I would say that this is the crux of most debates on the constitutionality of this program.
Secondly, "seizure". The temporary storage of digital metadata represents a large technicality that seems to be a loophole, allowing storage of NSA metadata, in an encrypted/untraceable form, until proper authorization is granted to access it. I'm for one am not about to accept the leakers word for it, that his capabilities are indeed free and open access.
IMO, the problem with a public debate is that such transparency, with regards to the capabilities of PRISM, may very well limit the effectiveness of the initiative by making the programs technical merits known to those who wish to exploit it.