N..S.A. Phone Data Collection Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules

[revelarts]

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday ruled that the once-secret National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal. The decision comes as a fight in Congress is intensifying over whether to end and replace the program, or to extend it.

In a 97-page ruling, a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a provision of the USA Patriot Act permitting the Federal Bureau of Investigation to collect business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation cannot be legitimately interpreted to permit the systematic bulk collection of domestic calling records.

The ruling was certain to increase the tension that has been building in Congress because the provision of the Patriot Act that has been cited to justify the bulk data collection program will expire in June unless lawmakers pass a bill to extend it.

It is the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program, which since 2006 has repeatedly been approved in secret by a national security court.

The court, in a decision written by Judge Gerard E. Lynch, held that the Patriot Act provision, known as Section 215, “cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program.”

In declaring the program illegal, the judges said, “We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.”

The House appears ready to pass a bill next week that would end the government’s bulk collection of phone records, but it has faced resistance from the Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader.

A similar bill died in the Senate in November after Mr. McConnell urged Republicans to block an up-or-down vote on it with a filibuster. Mr. McConnell urged a “clean extension” of Section 215 this time so the program could continue in its present form.

The appeals court did not reach a separate claim by the plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union, that the program also violated the Constitution. It overturned a ruling in December 2013 by a Federal District Court judge that the program was lawful. Parallel cases are pending before two other appeals courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us...als-court.html


Huh?!!
tapping all americans phones and data and saving for later is not constitutional?
It's Illegal? really? You don't say!!!


But i have to also point out that It's R's (who claim they LOVE the constitution, TEA PARTY YEAH!!) who are trying to keep this ILLEGAL unconstitutional practice going.
Let's Love the 2nd amendment but love the 4th, 5th and 8th too please. thanks!!


But I have been told that if courts or congress or the president says it's constitutional then it's is constitutional and legal. What the constitution says in plain english doesn't really count.

[Gunny]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us...als-court.html


Huh?!!
tapping all americans phones and data and saving for later is not constitutional?
It's Illegal? really? You don't say!!!


But i have to also point out that It's R's (who claim they LOVE the constitution, TEA PARTY YEAH!!) who are trying to keep this ILLEGAL unconstitutional practice going.
Let's Love the 2nd amendment but love the 4th, 5th and 8th too please. thanks!!


But I have been told that if courts or congress or the president says it's constitutional then it's is constitutional and legal. What the constitution says in plain english doesn't really count.

The only people that fear criminal investigation are criminals.

[Kathianne]

The only people that fear criminal investigation are criminals.

Warrantless gathering of information isn't a 'criminal investigation' it's a fishing expedition.

[Max R.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us...als-court.html


Huh?!!
tapping all americans phones and data and saving for later is not constitutional?
It's Illegal? really? You don't say!!!


But i have to also point out that It's R's (who claim they LOVE the constitution, TEA PARTY YEAH!!) who are trying to keep this ILLEGAL unconstitutional practice going.
Let's Love the 2nd amendment but love the 4th, 5th and 8th too please. thanks!!


But I have been told that if courts or congress or the president says it's constitutional then it's is constitutional and legal. What the constitution says in plain english doesn't really count.

I found it disturbing that RNC members were pushing for this extreme form of anti-Constitutional authoritarianism. This is one reason why I left the Republican party after 38 years of membership; because they were acting more like Democrats than defenders of American rights.

It's Democrats who, traditionally, always pushed for greater Federal power to control our fates since Federalists believe they know best. Republicans traditionally pushed for individual rights and freedom. Yes, sometimes this means the freedom to die, but at least we'd die free. Now they want to be right-winged democrats who "know best" and will take control of our freedoms. For the children, of course.

[Gunny]

Warrantless gathering of information isn't a 'criminal investigation' it's a fishing expedition.

You know me well enough to know I understand both sides of the argument. Didn't say I agreed with it. I basically said it doesn't affect ME.

The intrusion is NAZI. However, in a society that gives Constitutional Rights to terrorists and not calling them enemies, somebody has to do something. So where's the line, exactly?

[Max R.]

You know me well enough to know I understand both sides of the argument. Didn't say I agreed with it. I basically said it doesn't affect ME.

The intrusion is NAZI. However, in a society that gives Constitutional Rights to terrorists and not calling them enemies, somebody has to do something. So where's the line, exactly?

Standing with the Constitution is our best defense. Sometimes even if it means giving terrorists like Tsarnaev a fair trial....and a fair execution.

Every time we chip away at the Constitution in the name of expediency, it bites us in the ass. Best just to suffer through the consequences of being fair to all.

[fj1200]

The court, in a decision written by Judge Gerard E. Lynch, held that the Patriot Act provision, known as Section 215, “cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us...als-court.html

Huh?!!
tapping all americans phones and data and saving for later is not constitutional?
It's Illegal? really? You don't say!!!

Minor point; the article doesn't say it's unconstitutional, it says that the program has not been authorized.

I found it disturbing that RNC members were pushing for this extreme form of anti-Constitutional authoritarianism. This is one reason why I left the Republican party after 38 years of membership; because they were acting more like Democrats than defenders of American rights.

It's Democrats who, traditionally, always pushed for greater Federal power to control our fates since Federalists believe they know best. Republicans traditionally pushed for individual rights and freedom. Yes, sometimes this means the freedom to die, but at least we'd die free. Now they want to be right-winged democrats who "know best" and will take control of our freedoms. For the children, of course.

There are those that will argue that big government is conservative and good when big government is necessary. Or some such prattle.

[revelarts]

Minor point; the article doesn't say it's unconstitutional, it says that the program has not been authorized.

FJ sadly I have to say you are correct, and it's no small point.
the judge says the congress COULD make laws to that effect. and based on the ruling's language given in the snippets it seems that court would give the thumbs up on the law.

But FJ i have to ask, we've been around this bend before to, do you think when the constitution says.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,^[a] 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."

that's it is somehow very HONEST to conclude that it REALLY means the gov't CAN collect everyone's e-mails, phone conversations, bank records, internet use etc.. IF the congress and/or the President says it's necessary?

I'm not asking if they CAN do it. Or if they can SAY it's constitutional. they have the ability. and can say the moon is made of cheese.
I'm just asking you... and anyone else. If you think that's the wholesale data collection is an honest application or interpretation of the 4th amendment ?

There are those that will argue that big government is conservative and good when big government is necessary. Or some such prattle.

Prattle is one word, hypocrisy is one i've used.

[fj1200]

FJ sadly I have to say you are correct, and it's no small point.
the judge says the congress COULD make laws to that effect. and based on the ruling's language given in the snippets it seems that court would give the thumbs up on the law.

But FJ i have to ask, we've been around this bend before to, do you think when the constitution says.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,^[a] 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."

that's it is somehow very HONEST to conclude that it REALLY means the gov't CAN collect everyone's e-mails, phone conversations, bank records, internet use etc.. IF the congress and/or the President says it's necessary?

I'm not asking if they CAN do it. Or if they can SAY it's constitutional. they have the ability. and can say the moon is made of cheese.
I'm just asking you... and anyone else. If you think that's the wholesale data collection is an honest application or interpretation of the 4th amendment ?

I don't know if they would give it the thumbs up or not; it might not be the place for that particular court to do so or if they had the timing to make that opinion.

The appeals court did not reach a separate claim by the plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union, that the program also violated the Constitution. It overturned a ruling in December 2013 by a Federal District Court judge that the program was lawful. Parallel cases are pending before two other appeals courts.

Nevertheless I think I could make an argument that metadata collection of cell records wouldn't necessarily violate the Constitution because that uses the public spectrum and metadata is what the decision was regarding. I think the answer is different for the other examples you gave. Having said that, just because something is Constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea but that's why we have elected officials.

Prattle is one word, hypocrisy is one i've used.

I won't argue the point.

[revelarts]

I don't know if they would give it the thumbs up or not; it might not be the place for that particular court to do so or if they had the timing to make that opinion.
Nevertheless I think I could make an argument that metadata collection of cell records wouldn't necessarily violate the Constitution because that uses the public spectrum and metadata is what the decision was regarding. I think the answer is different for the other examples you gave. Having said that, just because something is Constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea but that's why we have elected officials.

:headshake:
I guess you know we strongly disagree here.
and the bit about being "Constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea". Well I've yet to see anyone with any BETTER ideas that for d@mn sure.

and i've been told several times that the LAW is the LAW. and i'm all on board with that if they stoop to consider the constitution LAW.

[fj1200]

I guess you know we strongly disagree here.
and the bit about being "Constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea". Well I've yet to see anyone with any BETTER ideas that for d@mn sure.

Outside of metadata issues we're pretty much on the same page.
And I'll clarify, there are plenty of bad laws that are Constitutional.

[indago]

I found it disturbing that RNC members were pushing for this extreme form of anti-Constitutional authoritarianism. This is one reason why I left the Republican party after 38 years of membership; because they were acting more like Democrats than defenders of American rights.

Demolicans All...

[indago]

Standing with the Constitution is our best defense. Sometimes even if it means giving terrorists like Tsarnaev a fair trial....and a fair execution.

One-Eyed Jacks:

Dad Longworth to Rio: "We're going to give you a fair trial... and then we're going to hang you!"

[Gunny]

Standing with the Constitution is our best defense. Sometimes even if it means giving terrorists like Tsarnaev a fair trial....and a fair execution.

Every time we chip away at the Constitution in the name of expediency, it bites us in the ass. Best just to suffer through the consequences of being fair to all.

I agree about the Constitution. Seems to me the last time we did that was 1861.

And I always give the same analogy: for every bit of protection you seek, you give up the same amount of liberty. So ... who wants to fight and who wants protection?

The left are the weaklings that think government can protect them. They were the ones crying like babies after 9/1/1 for Bush to "do something". So he did something. I get just a little tired of the very people crying for someone else to protect them being the same ones bitching about the result. And note: The Patriot Act was a problem for the left from 2001 to 2008, but hasn't been since.

The Constitution was written with a quill on parchment. Now, if someone can't find his/her cell phone they break out in hives. We DO have to adjust to progress. Especially since we're the self-annointed moral barometer and police force for the world, not just 13 colonies.

[Max R.]

I agree about the Constitution. Seems to me the last time we did that was 1861.

And I always give the same analogy: for every bit of protection you seek, you give up the same amount of liberty. So ... who wants to fight and who wants protection?

The left are the weaklings that think government can protect them. They were the ones crying like babies after 9/1/1 for Bush to "do something". So he did something. I get just a little tired of the very people crying for someone else to protect them being the same ones bitching about the result. And note: The Patriot Act was a problem for the left from 2001 to 2008, but hasn't been since.

The Constitution was written with a quill on parchment. Now, if someone can't find his/her cell phone they break out in hives. We DO have to adjust to progress. Especially since we're the self-annointed moral barometer and police force for the world, not just 13 colonies.

While I completely agree the Left relies far too much on government to protect them, especially without thinking it through first, they aren't the only ones at fault. The Right pushed hard on the Patriot Act too just like they pushed hard to invade Iraq. As mentioned previously, it's those on the Right, Republicans, who are complaining the loudest about the Supreme Court ruling.