Supreme Court turns down ACLU bid to kill NSA warrantless wiretapping

Discuss

12 Responses to “Supreme Court turns down ACLU bid to kill NSA warrantless wiretapping”

  1. Andrew Singleton says:

    ‘due to the high likelyhood of communicating with targets’

    *headdesk*

    YOU ARE THE FINAL CHECK AGAINST ABUSES OF LAW YOU SHOULD LOOK AT SOMETHING AND GO ‘HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE ABUSED’ NOT ‘WHO ARE THE PEOPLE BRINGING UP THIS DREK AND HOW CAN WE BE DISMISSIVE OF THEIR CLAIMS’. THANK YOU GOODNIGHT!

    /frustrated mini rant

  2. I guess then it is okay for the NSA to wiretap the Supreme Court Justices and their staff because as long as the individuals do not know that they could be wiretapped or monitored.

    “In other words, since the Americans (Supreme Court Justices/Clerks/Staffers) did not have definitive proof that they were being surveilled under the FAA—a fact the government nearly always keeps secret—they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute.”

    If you don’t vote our way, we will release/leak all our evidence into the public and publicly humiliate you.

  3. Navin_Johnson says:

    Was really impressed with the teaming masses of right wing constitutional literalists that showed up to protest. So many gun’s rights and NRA people truly concerned about “liberty”……

  4. John Idaho says:

    Is it safe to comment on this article?

  5. lavardera says:

    So let me get this straight. You can only protest secret eavesdropping if its not secret.

    First base.

  6. Cowicide says:

    This is yet another great time to do something and support the EFF who is still in the fight.

  7. glaborous_immolate says:

    So it seems to me here the analogy is that, say, 

    1) a law is passed that says cops can now try any door of any house they come across and if its open they can search it [we have a law that violates privacy, and would not pass constitutional muster]

    2) either no cops actually do this, or we can’t prove that they do this because they are VERY neat when they search houses this way [no body is able to demonstrate direct harm]

    3) some people buy expensive locks, or say, now I really NEED that lock I was using anyway to prove they are harmed by the potential of something that by 2 hasn’t seen any evidence of happening

    Is there really any evidence that the standing doctrine here is much different from that used in every other case? Nobody could demonstrate harm. Open and shut (why do 4 justices disagree?)

    How will the EFF demonstrate harm in a different way than the ACLU tried to?

  8. anansi133 says:

    That’s some catch, that catch-22.

Leave a Reply