quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

I never supported Bush.

Damages and standing are legal terms. In 2006 and 2007 noone could state with certainty that they had been wiretapped.

Now millions of people as well as some organizations can show they have been wiretapped by the NSA and thus may now assert a violation of their Civil Liberties in Federal Court.

Without a Plaintiff with standing the Court can not hear the case on its merits.

In 2009, SCOTUS split 5-4 on whether to hear Amnesty v Clapper et al.

"In 2009, a judge in New York dismissed the suit on the grounds that the ACLU’s clients couldn’t prove that their communications would be monitored under the new law. A federal appeals court reversed that ruling in 2011 and the Obama administration appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in October 2012. In a 5-4 ruling handed down on February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the the ACLU plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper

Precisely what civil right was violated? Also what damages occurred from collection of metadata? Note that no wiretaps are involved in any of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ok, so this is a swipe at the Patriot Act itself.

Now, unless I am mistaken, that act allows the government can freely search emails, phone records and financial records without a court order.

How is that possible?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thats sorta my thought process here. Maybe I am naive, but it seems to me that just a list of phone numbers isnt going to give a while lot of information, except who may be calling whom. It doesnt give the why's, for which theyhave to have a court order for, yes?

quote:

PRISM is not designed to do that, it is designed to look for patterns in bulk information, but that same information can be used to search for other patterns, including in individual people, and that is what is troubling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

PRISM is not designed to do that, it is designed to look for patterns in bulk information, but that same information can be used to search for other patterns, including in individual people, and that is what is troubling.

That was my understanding of the system, the info they were getting. Would I want an expansion of those powers? Nope. I also believe the "secret court" needs a better oversight committee than the one in Congress.

From my readings, it requires only one Judge to make the determination. If they are declined, they cant ask another Judge, they have to go for an appeal. Im not so happy about the 1 Judge situation.

Now, I also understand the following... Im not always as dense as I seem on some issues.. lol

In a ruling released today, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said that NSLs suffer from “significant constitutional defects” and violate the First Amendment because of the way they can be used to effectively gag companies that receive them. Illston has ordered the FBI to stop issuing NSLs and cease enforcing their gag provisions in all cases. However, the ruling has been stayed for 90 days, giving the government the chance to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because of the “constitutional and national security issues at stake.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/15/susan_illston_district_court_judge_declares_national_security_letters_unconstitutional.html

That time is quickly approaching. Could this be the reason for the recent events with Verizon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner
These cases don't go to trial because the level of secrecy has prevented anyone from discovering that they have standing to sue.

SCOTUS hasn't really considered this stuff yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

I never supported Bush.

Damages and standing are legal terms. In 2006 and 2007 noone could state with certainty that they had been wiretapped.

Now millions of people as well as some organizations can show they have been wiretapped by the NSA and thus may now assert a violation of their Civil Liberties in Federal Court.

Without a Plaintiff with standing the Court can not hear the case on its merits.

In 2009, SCOTUS split 5-4 on whether to hear Amnesty v Clapper et al.

"In 2009, a judge in New York dismissed the suit on the grounds that the ACLU’s clients couldn’t prove that their communications would be monitored under the new law. A federal appeals court reversed that ruling in 2011 and the Obama administration appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in October 2012. In a 5-4 ruling handed down on February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the the ACLU plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper

Precisely what civil right was violated? Also what damages occurred from collection of metadata? Note that no wiretaps are involved in any of this.

Metadata can be used in many ways, and while the intent of this right now is pretty straightforward, with the records they do have, they can make a pretty good profile of an individual person, who they call, what they are into, where they are at any given time, enough in many cases to figure out a lot more then simply if they are a threat or not. I doubt anyone is doing this right now, but the tools exist to do this....and with the internet stuff, it is a lot more then metadata, supposedly the NSA can get web browsing information, e-mail traffic as well as who you are sending to, and so forth, and that can be used a lot more effectively if they want to blackmail someone. The supposed safeguards they have, FISA, only work if the government agencies abide by that and report in what they are doing; but what history has shown is neither the judiciary, nor the congressional oversight committees, act as much of a check and balance in these cases. The CIA ran wild in the 60's, and the congressional intelligence commitees did nothing to stop them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wouldnt they have to prove they were tapped first?

They need to prove they had their privacy rights violated by the Federal Government.

Obama's surveillance is so all inclusive it is likely to have violated the Constitutional Rights of every person inside the United States who uses a telephone or the internet (certainly all Verizon customers).

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheRockUHoldOnto

GOD BLESS RAND PAUL Our next President!