Article

2013-06-09 Government

DoJ Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-06-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 MotherJ misunderstands the situation.

For there to be a 4th amendment (unreasonable search) issue is a high barrier. It would require a court to find, for example, that a person had a reasonable expectation that the phone numbers they called would be secret. That's just not going to happen.

What is ikely is that the Obama Admin asked the FISA court for permission to do something and then did a bit more than they were permitted.

Even though it shows the Admin as sneaky, deceitful, mendacious, etc., that's not a constitutional issue. Its an administrative issue.

Posted by lord garth 2013-06-09 00:21|| 2013-06-09 00:21|| Front Page Top

#2 I doubt Champ has the synaptic energy or the intelligence collection background to coordinate, process, and fuse all of these scandalous surveillance events. Someone or a group of someone's in some type of [possibly off-site] White House fusion cell has been quite busy sending out taskings, managing and harvesting collection, and formulating targeting strategies and policy responses. None of these sordid events happen by chance or accident, there is a formal mechanism and programme at work. I hope that this structure will soon be revealed.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-06-09 03:49|| 2013-06-09 03:49|| Front Page Top

#3 The long line of legal precedent is the requirement to have a warrant to search first class mail and to tap a person's phone line which is anchored on the 4th.

Some one is playing games in the concept that if you search everyone, say a DUI check point, you can do this, ignoring that it occurs on an open public road for which there is no expectation of privacy. By this appearent rationale, if the state breaks down everyone's doors and searches everyone's houses, then they say its OK.

As for the court, the 14th says we can not discriminate based upon race, and yet the court has operated with intent to in fact discriminate on race for over two generations. Just because some one in robes says what it says, doesn't mean that is what it truly means, particularly if even uncredentialed can grasp the basic intent and concepts.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-06-09 08:37|| 2013-06-09 08:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Some of the decisions SCOTUS has come up with are absolutely mind-boggling and defy logic.

Posted by JohnQC 2013-06-09 10:49|| 2013-06-09 10:49|| Front Page Top

#5 I worry more about the FISA court. Decisions they make are essentially done in secret and doesn't seem to have much oversight. Who do they answer to? Congressional security oversight committees?

Posted by JohnQC 2013-06-09 10:52|| 2013-06-09 10:52|| Front Page Top

#6 ..that would be Star Chamber.

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Councillors, as well as common-law judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.

Back to where we started from.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-06-09 11:36|| 2013-06-09 11:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Mother Earth News?
:)
The times they are a changing.... all most heaven, South New Jersey, reminds of the brownfields far away..

Posted by Shipman 2013-06-09 15:35|| 2013-06-09 15:35|| Front Page Top

#8 What is ikely is that the Obama Admin asked the FISA court for permission to do something and then did a bit more than they were permitted.

Like "no fly zone" over Libya, lord garth.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-06-09 16:12|| 2013-06-09 16:12|| Front Page Top

23:04 JosephMendiola
20:05 JosephMendiola
20:00 Besoeker
19:53 JosephMendiola
19:51 JohnQC
19:42 Thing From Snowy Mountain
19:37 AlanC
19:23 DarthVader
19:22 Besoeker
19:12 Winky Sproing5899
19:11 Besoeker
18:53 tipper
18:43 Lionel B. Hayes3036
18:41 Au Auric
17:57 Au Auric
17:55 Procopius2k
17:55 Bangkok Billy
17:42 KBK
17:32 Au Auric
16:49 European Conservative
16:39 BrerRabbit
16:37 Brerrabbit
16:14 g(r)omgoru
16:12 g(r)omgoru