Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

Post by ncmncm » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #225

portpecos wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA. Let’s not forget that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act even after campaigning in 2008 to end it. This kind of behavior is a problem that spans generations of government positions. It’s about time something is done about it.

> Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA. * 109 generals oppose her nomination in a letter: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/RMLSena... * yes, there were some democrats who voted in her favour, but there were republicans too who voted against her. Overall though, the overwhelming majority democrats did vote against her. F…

Post by koolba » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #231

37383265253 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you prosecute people who were given permission by the relevant authorities? >The call-tracking effort began without court authorization under President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So the PotUS gave them the authority. >A similar program was approved by the secretive FISA Court beginning in 2006 and renewed numerous times, but the 9th Circuit panel said those rulings were…

> As an aside, it's wildly funny to me that the ACLU won't defend free speech anymore but they'll defend terrorists and their supporters. When has the ACLU stopped defending free speech? They defend convicted terrorists or alleged terrorists?

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:28 AM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #103

DennisP wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the courts could make a distinction between "ok this was unclear" and "this was obvious, egregious and deserving of penalties." And while throwing Congress in jail seems unworkable, disqualifying members from reelection in egregious cases might be doable (though of course it would require a constitutional amendment).

This is essentially the qualified immunity debate. SCOTUS has decided that unless the government defendant did something that SCOTUS in the past has specifically ruled is unconstitutional, you don't get to win a ruling against them. Where specifically is defined exceptionally narrowly.

Post by jacobwilliamroy » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

btbuildem wrote: post #46

So, do they have to delete all the databases now? Or just keep the illegally collected data all the same?

Post by yyyk » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #250

yyyk wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kid could always be charged on some other state-level technicality. These charges would be state-level and therefore not subject to Presidential pardon. That said, such a limited abuse would not justify ditching the pardon power. History has shown that not having a pardon power would have been impossible - the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam, without…

> the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved. > without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc. It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.