ADVERTISEMENT

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Nixes NSA Surveillance

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
54,288
35,727
113
Duckburg
Haven't read the opinion yet, but apparently it says the current NSA practices are outside what the Patriot Act authorizes.

The internet and our technological capabilities ala information/data is testing our beliefs in individual freedoms, and our limits in fighting terror.

Then again, maybe 9/11 changed nothing.
 
The court found that the current Patriot Act does not support the bulk collection of data the NSA is undertaking is not authorized by current law.

9/11 should not change our constitutional process. Our constitution has survived, with some modifications, far worse tribulations.
 
We need to be faster than the speed of terrorists

I have no problem withcapturing all electronic communication meta-data and running it though some kind of computer algorithm to look in real time for patterns that indicate a potential terrorist attack. I don't view such things as an invasion of my privacy or a limit to my freedom. If we need to tinker with the Patriot Act to allow this, then I am in favor. Once the threat focuses on an individual, then appropriate oversight and warrants kick in. If we need to meet some probable cause or reasonable suspicion standard to gather this data, then we would likely be too late to the party. That would suggest the potential perps are already engaging in overt acts of terrorism which puts us behind the curve. I don't see this activity much differently than a low-tech stakeout; or passing by highway CCTV and surveillance cameras, or authorities cruising parking lots with license plate scanners looking for stolen or other vehicles of interest.

One of the perps in the Garland foiled attack was already "of interest" to the FBI. I wonder if interest was raised because of this technology.
 
Last edited:
We need to be faster than the speed of terrorists

I have no problem withcapturing all electronic communication meta-data and running it though some kind of computer algorithm to look in real time for patterns that indicate a potential terrorist attack. I don't view such things as an invasion of my privacy or a limit to my freedom. If we need to tinker with the Patriot Act to allow this, then I am in favor. Once the threat focuses on an individual, then appropriate oversight and warrants kick in. If we need to meet some probable cause or reasonable suspicion standard to gather this data, then we would likely be too late to the party. That would suggest the potential perps are already engaging in overt acts of terrorism which puts us behind the curve. I don't see this activity much differently than a low-tech stakeout; or passing by highway CCTV and surveillance cameras, or authorities cruising parking lots with license plate scanners looking for stolen or other vehicles of interest.

One of the perps in the Garland foiled attack was already "of interest" to the FBI. I wonder if interest was raised because of this technology.

Oswald was "of interest" to the Dallas FBI.
Just sayin ...
 
You mean the Obama administration is/was breaking the law. I can remember a couple people going nuts because Bush was breaking the law. Like COH I really don't have a problem with what they were/are doing.
 
You mean the Obama administration is/was breaking the law. I can remember a couple people going nuts because Bush was breaking the law. Like COH I really don't have a problem with what they were/are doing.
Actually, on this particular forum, those of us liberals who voiced opinions on the matter were consistently opposed to unlawful surveillance under either President. Even everyone's favorite Liberal Villain, Rock, was very blunt in his criticism of the administration.
 
Actually, on this particular forum, those of us liberals who voiced opinions on the matter were consistently opposed to unlawful surveillance under either President. Even everyone's favorite Liberal Villain, Rock, was very blunt in his criticism of the administration.
The other point NPT still misses: Bush claimed he could conduct illegal surveillance of Americans even if he knew it was illegal, because he operated under the Nixonian theory that "If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Bush claimed for himself the sole, secret, and unreviewable authority to do whatever he wanted any time he decided he was wearing his commander-in-chief hat. He went 0-for-everything in the Supreme Court on that theory, then backed down -- after Congress obligingly expanded his authority, but apparently not as far as first he and then Obama took it.

Obama has always rejected Bush's radical interpretation of Presidential power. Nevertheless, Presidents of both parties always want unchecked authority, and they should always be denied it -- if not by Congress then by the courts. Because unchecked power will always be abused and will always produce bad outcomes, no matter which party occupies the White House. To the extent that our dysfunctional Congress can rouse itself to action, it should constrain the President's authority further still, by insisting that the Executive cannot surveil any Americans without particularized suspicion.

We are the greatest, richest, and most powerful nation in human history, and the threats we face today are historically slight. I don't understand why so many of us don't get that. If you think that "9/11 changed everything," then you're a coward. Because no "Real American" could be cowed by that -- even though so many "Real Americans" are utterly unhinged by it. What is wrong with you people?
 
By the way, all three of the judges on the panel were Democratic appointees, which didn't help a Democratic President defending a bad policy.
 
Obama has always rejected Bush's radical interpretation of Presidential power.
Don't think so...he just says in words that he rejects it but then proceeds just the opposite.
 
Don't think so...he just says in words that he rejects it but then proceeds just the opposite.
You're wrong. Please feel free to cite specific examples, though, with explanations of the illegality.
 
The other point NPT still misses: Bush claimed he could conduct illegal surveillance of Americans even if he knew it was illegal, because he operated under the Nixonian theory that "If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Bush claimed for himself the sole, secret, and unreviewable authority to do whatever he wanted any time he decided he was wearing his commander-in-chief hat. He went 0-for-everything in the Supreme Court on that theory, then backed down -- after Congress obligingly expanded his authority, but apparently not as far as first he and then Obama took it.

Obama has always rejected Bush's radical interpretation of Presidential power. Nevertheless, Presidents of both parties always want unchecked authority, and they should always be denied it -- if not by Congress then by the courts. Because unchecked power will always be abused and will always produce bad outcomes, no matter which party occupies the White House. To the extent that our dysfunctional Congress can rouse itself to action, it should constrain the President's authority further still, by insisting that the Executive cannot surveil any Americans without particularized suspicion.

We are the greatest, richest, and most powerful nation in human history, and the threats we face today are historically slight. I don't understand why so many of us don't get that. If you think that "9/11 changed everything," then you're a coward. Because no "Real American" could be cowed by that -- even though so many "Real Americans" are utterly unhinged by it. What is wrong with you people?

Bush claimed the same power Lincoln (and others) claimed - that as part of the war powers of a CIC, he had broad(er) authority to act unilaterally for military reasons in military matters - which you misinterpret and misrepresent as "If the President does it, its not illegal."

Your blind partisanship, intentional misrepresentations and denigration of your political opposition rival Goebbels. No "real" German can ever disagree.
 
Bush claimed the same power Lincoln (and others) claimed - that as part of the war powers of a CIC, he had broad(er) authority to act unilaterally for military reasons in military matters - which you misinterpret and misrepresent as "If the President does it, its not illegal."

Your blind partisanship, intentional misrepresentations and denigration of your political opposition rival Goebbels. No "real" German can ever disagree.
Lincoln didn't claim the Nixonian powers that Bush claimed. Instead he relied on Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Also unlike Bush, Lincoln acted openly and not secretly. And of course Lincoln acted during the extraordinary circumstances of the Civil War, a moment in history for which the Latin phrase sui generis is perfectly suited.

If you wish to learn about Lincoln's suspension of the Great Writ, you could read this. Here is a piece on the unitary executive theory that Bush relied on. But in the meantime, you've got both the law and the history wrong.

"Your blind partisanship, intentional misrepresentations and denigration of your political opposition rival Goebbels."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Lincoln didn't claim the Nixonian powers that Bush claimed. Instead he relied on Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Also unlike Bush, Lincoln acted openly and not secretly. And of course Lincoln acted during the extraordinary circumstances of the Civil War, a moment in history for which the Latin phrase sui generis is perfectly suited.

If you wish to learn about Lincoln's suspension of the Great Writ, you could read this. Here is a piece on the unitary executive theory that Bush relied on. But in the meantime, you've got both the law and the history wrong.

"Your blind partisanship, intentional misrepresentations and denigration of your political opposition rival Goebbels."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I was not discussing Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus.
I was discussing Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.
 
I was not discussing Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus.
I was discussing Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.
No, you were pulling shit out of your ass. Again.

I can't believe you graduated from law school. You utterly lack the ability to engage in critical thinking. I feel sorry for your clients.
 
No, you were pulling shit out of your ass. Again.

I can't believe you graduated from law school. You utterly lack the ability to engage in critical thinking. I feel sorry for your clients.

You know how we know when you got something wrong, and someone pointed it out?
You insult them.

You're wrong a lot.
Rage on.

You assumed a fact.
You were wrong.
Again.

You are the least self-aware poster on this board.
Everyone else on this board can engage in civil discourse.
You cannot.
Do you ever wonder why?
Do you understand at all this need you have to insult and denigrate?
Do you even want to understand this abnormal rage response?

I hope you do.
No one should be so miserable for so long.
 
You know how we know when you got something wrong, and someone pointed it out?
You insult them.

You're wrong a lot.
Rage on.

You assumed a fact.
You were wrong.
Again.

You are the least self-aware poster on this board.
Everyone else on this board can engage in civil discourse.
You cannot.
Do you ever wonder why?
Do you understand at all this need you have to insult and denigrate?
Do you even want to understand this abnormal rage response?

I hope you do.
No one should be so miserable for so long.
Again, not raging. Laughing.

Q: What do a divorce in Eastern Kentucky, a tornado in Kansas, and a hurricane in Florida have in common?
A: Somebody's fixin' to lose a trailer.
 
Again, not raging. Laughing.

Q: What do a divorce in Eastern Kentucky, a tornado in Kansas, and a hurricane in Florida have in common?
A: Somebody's fixin' to lose a trailer.

You are a raging bigot! You should be too embarrassed to even show your face here. But, you're not, indicating what a classless, clueless piece of scum you are.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT