This puts scotus in a difficult position. They've generally refused to hear national security cases. Now they'll have to...
Nah. They'll just quietly refuse to hear it and nothing will change.
Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
141–150 of 493 posts
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to the American Revolution. The 'holding accountable' was the revocation of Britain's authority over the colonies.
In what way was the British Government "held accountable"? British leaders in Britain weren't held accountable, and many of the eventual founders were high level bureaucrats in the British government of the American colonies.
They lost the territory and all of its resources that allowed those within it to eventually overtake their status as the world's most powerful nation.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#143Our society hasn't figured out how to punish organizations, whether businesses, NGOs, religious groups, or government agencies. Past a certain level, fines don't cut it—you need existential threats. We need "prison" more often for misbehaving entities; that is, a prohibition on operating for the duration of the sentence. "But what about all the people who will be unemployed?" Exactly, that's part of the incentive not…
Except in rare circumstances, "collective responsibility" is very hard to prove in the courts of law. When a large section of a society dislikes certain thing, yes, it is possible to prosecute groups. When is this possible? Crimes against humanity is one such example. Or going after mafia or biker gangs. Otherwise, at some time or another, it is very easy to convict influential sections of a society. That's why judge…
I'm not saying to punish a group of individuals individually, but to disband the group itself for a time.
If individuals also broke the law, then of course they should be punished accordingly.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#144You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. The US constitution needs lots of updates but this maybe the most important item -- manadatory prison terms for anyone acting…
> You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. It's because it can't reasonably work like that. At a certain point, defining punishments is moot, because there's no highe…
I don't think it would be unconstitutional ex-post-facto. Obergefell v. Hodges didn't define sex discrimination in marriage certificates unconstitutional after a certain date. It was always unconstitutional, and was recognized as such in their ruling.
And yes, I would like to see, actually, qualified immunity removed and governments held liable for rights violations. Perhaps not prison time for the clerks - who were simply "following orders", as horrendous a saying as that is - but some liability and remedy for the countless people harmed.
How different a world would it be if as a result of Brown v. Board of Education was that black families were financially compensated for sixty years of segregation and for centuries before that denied the right to an education?
How different a world would it be if as a result of Shelley v. Kraemer, every black person who was told they couldn't buy a home because of a bank was compensated?
How different a world would it be if as a result of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, women who sought an abortion and were denied or unable due to unconstitutional restrictions on clinics were compensated by the equivalent of child support from the state?
I think that would be a better world. No, I don't think the clerks, the school boards, or health commission members in Texas should go to jail. But I do think that perhaps, just perhaps, we might live in a more just world today if there were long-term consequences for denying someone their rights. And maybe, just maybe, we can then start to ask whether or not "just following orders" is a good way to justify one's individual place in society.
But before we go down the slippery slope of questioning whether evil can be banal - it can - we should ask whether or not its prior victims should be entitled to a remedy too.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question for history buffs: What are some instances where you'd say, "Gee, I'm glad Presidential pardon was available"?
Biden's promising to pardon all non-violent drug crimes, is he not? Though not historical, if it were to happen that could mark a turning point for our country. Though one could also use that same pardon power to avoid prosecution for domestic terrorists that support your agenda or crimes of election fraud. So I'm definitely on the side of revoking one person's power to override the entire judiciary for arbitrary rea…
I haven't heard this. If he makes that promise plainly enough, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. The Drug War has cost us too much.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t hold a random analyst, usually a contractor and not a “government official”, for not sharing your opinion on what a 200-year old, intentionally vague, document meant about who-was-contacting-who on a pice of technology that wasn’t invented. Let alone a law that was, albeit controversial at the time, in place for almost 20 years. Would you prefer that your public servants follow the law... or do whatever the…
We hold low grade solders responsible for following illegal orders, even when those orders come from the very top of the chain of command. Although its giant double standard, despite knowledge of illegal acts frequently those higher in the chain of command aren't held responsible (aka, look up waterboarding).
>We hold low grade solders responsible for following illegal orders, even when those orders come from the very top of the chain of command.
We mostly don't unless we're looking for scapegoats.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#147The National Security Agency program that swept up details on billions of Americans' phone calls was illegal and possibly unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
However, the unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the role the so-called telephone metadata program played in a criminal terror-fundraising case against four Somali immigrants was so minor that it did not undermine their convictions. https://www.bloggerzune.com/2020/06/10-Most-Important-SEO-St...
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#148Isn't the 9th circuit the court where most of the liberal judges sit. This decision can as well go to the Supreme Court and get overturned.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#149You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. The US constitution needs lots of updates but this maybe the most important item -- manadatory prison terms for anyone acting…
> You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. It's because it can't reasonably work like that. At a certain point, defining punishments is moot, because there's no highe…
With the exception of the president, there is always an authority that can arrest/punish an authority (including the military).
Incorrect interpretation of the law is not what I am talking about, intentional violation is. The clerks that denied marriage licenses before the ruling did not violate the law and after the ruling yes, they did act on behalf of government (not that I am expressing my view on the matter). What happened was one clerk was jailed indefinitetly (human rights violation!) Until she complied instead of measured punishment and removal from office. Regarding the law makers, the law maker that introduced it should be punished if it can be proven he violated the bill of rights on purpose (intent).
You can't say the law is not clear enough to punish people. You're essentially saying the law is a guideline open to free interpretation. If I kill someone with a gun, is it murder? It depends right, even in such a simple scenario the law is not clear cut, that's why you have judges. A cop on duty can get away with a shooting if he feared for his life, in certain states you can proactively stand your ground and kill intruders. No matter what, judges interpret law and lack of clarity is fine.
The crime is violating constitutional law while acting on behalf of government. Intentional ignorance of the bill of rights or malicious violation of the same must be proven in court to find a person guilty.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. It's because it can't reasonably work like that. At a certain point, defining punishments is moot, because there's no highe…
Whaaaa?! > because there's no higher authority to appeal to for enforcement. Then we do not live in a democracy with a rule of law. Why have the constitution at all? Barring weasel lawyering and issues around standing. The very idea that you would claim these violations are not punishable means that they will continue to occur. I am having a hard time fathoming how you take this stance at all.
> Then we do not live in a democracy with a rule of law. Why have the constitution at all?
The concept of checks and balances is an attempt to mitigate this problem. The "higher authority" is the other branches of government. But even that only goes so far.
Ultimately the entire scheme only works because individual humans agree to abide by the implicit social contract to live within the system of laws. To the extent that large number of people come to not feel bound by the social contract, well at some point you have some sort of haphazard and generally unjust system, insurrection, or even civil war.
I'm tempted to make some comments about recent events in the US, but suffice to say there are definitely some people who seem to think the current social contract isn't worth saving. And I'm not just talking about those taking action in the streets. There are plenty of people in elected positions of power who are behaving in that way also. It would be nice if those who feel like it isn't worth working within the system to improve things had any sort of an alternative. Unfortunately it is orders of magnitude easier to dismantle and destroy than it is to create and build. I hope we don't have to learn that lesson the hard way.