The US congress gave retroactive immunity to AT&T for this so you can't sue them for actively working with the US government to violate the constitution.
Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
271–280 of 493 posts
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, all judges can be impeached, and all judges other than SCOTUS can be appealed (there's actually a specific writ you can file claiming to be jailed unjustly, habeas corpus). This doesn't vacate the original judgement, which is nigh-unappealable if made by SCOTUS. There are also cases when impeachment isn't warranted but a pardon still makes sense (I gave examples in another post in the thread). I think ad…
I don't think SCOTUS in its entire history has ever directly ordered anyone jailed, only upheld lower court rulings jailing someone or overturning opinions that concluded someone shouldn't be jailed. So at most that's recourse within the judicial system failing, not lack of recourse; obviously, pardon power can "fail" as recourse too, if anything, not providing recourse to injustice is the normal operation of pardon…
Well, I think the judicial/legal branch can overstep like any other, and needs some checks too. Letting everything be decided by a judge with a lifetime position risks the court forcing its position on an unwilling populace (think of SCOTUS's original position during the New Deal). But impeachment/packing is a radical move (itself a power play which can be just as unjustified), and doesn't necessarily help the accused as much.
As I wrote, if I had a say on this I'd go for a more limited pardon power than the current situation. I suspect our positions in the end aren't too different.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#273So, do they have to delete all the databases now? Or just keep the illegally collected data all the same?
It was deleted in 2016. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-termination/nsa-t...
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#274Our 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…
Shutting down the NSA isn't the answer. We do need those orgs to keep operating for good reasons. Otherwise somebody who dislikes those orgs or has a grudge can shut the whole thing down by breaking the law (imagine a foreign agent playing the "long-con" and doing this). The answer, as others have already said, is imprisonment of commanding officiers, supervisors, senators in charge of oversight committees, etc. Hold…
The org must be accountable for its actions (or inactions). It's the org's responsibility to make sure its agents don't mess up when acting under its authority. Hire employees who are trustworthy and competent, fire those who aren't, and provide training and oversight to ensure compliance. That's a reasonable minimum bar.
Separately, if a person breaks a law, they should be punished for that.
And remember, judgements incorporate circumstances and intentions when determining punishments. So a small non-profit that was trying its best but was still hacked by a nation-state would probably get a lighter punishment, just as accidental manslaughter usually receives a lighter sentence than pre-meditated murder.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that a CIA officer who oversaw, ordered, and participated in systematic detainee torture, then wrote the order to destroy the evidential tapes of said torture, was not only not punished or prosecuted but promoted to the current Director of the agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel
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.
Must defend Trump! Even if it means lying about easily verifiable house voting records!
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to even pretend he did something wrong after this ruling. The government was proven to be acting illegally and likely also unconstitutionally, he had a moral imperative to alert the public.
So does he also have a moral imperative to stand trial for what laws he himself broke? So basically the US needs to follow their strict laws to the T. But adversaries like Russia and China can play as dirty as they want. Moralists will do well against communist dictatorships, I'm sure.
He should, and has offered to do so, but so far the US government has refused him a fair trial.
I have faith that the US can behave ethically AND stand strong against foreign powers. Moral authority can be a valuable form of soft power.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if Clapper established that you could lie before US Congress without consequence, or if there are earlier instances?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North "In July 1987, North was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint congressional committee that was formed to investigate the Iran–Contra scandal. During the hearings, North admitted that he had misled Congress..." One of the sources explains that when congress investigated the Iran-Contra scandal, it granted Oliver North immunity for what he would say. From o…
Ahh yes, then North proceeded to head up the NRA.
It’s grifts all the way down!
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The ACLU’s moral compass needle has been wobbling for a while now, and it broke off completely after Trump was elected. They realized that they collect significantly more donations by framing themselves as champion of leftist ideals rather than the original purpose of defending actual civil liberties.
I find your lack of evidence unsurprising.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seemed pretty obvious to me when I wrote the original content that I was referring to the American revolution as the 'holding Britain accountable'.
Perhaps, but I don't think that they were punished. The difference I'm getting at here is subtle, but it's the difference between declaring independence and replacing the existing government. Both happen through revolution of some form, but one breaks away from a government you dislike. THat's not punitive. One replaces it and usually punishes the old one. Declaring independence from a distant seat of government is v…
"held accountable != "punished" or "punative".
I'm not talking about punishment or punative action. I'm talking about accountability, where being 'held accountable' could be a synonym for 'held responsible'. In this case, the way I used the phrase, Britain was 'held responsible' by simply being told to 'go away'.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. Actually, it's nonsense to think anything to the contrary. Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Your outlandish logic nullifies any power that the government may have over it's people. It nullifies the social contract.…
>Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. Congress and the Supreme Court commonly disagree on the constitutionality of laws. What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the…
> What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court.
Overall agree that we shouldn't be throwing members of Congress in jail over good-faith disagreements of constitutionality, etc.
However, "Supreme Court oligarchy" is a stretch. Even if their rulings could send lawmakers to jail.
Amending the Constitution is always an option, and that's a 100% Legislative (Federal + 38 States) action that neither the courts nor the President can block.
With enough consensus, the Legislature (and by proxy, the electorate) technically have all the power.
1. Constitutional + simple majority + Presidential support = law.
2. Constitutional + 2/3 majority = law.
3. Unconstitutional + 2/3 majority + 38 states = law.
But, broad consensus among the electorate is hard to come by these days, especially on contentious issues.
Instead, both parties rail against "activist judges", stack the courts every opportunity they get, and regularly pass laws/programs with debatable constitutionality to constantly push the boundaries.
This is likely the correct "play to win" strategy too. I just wish people played the game as intended.
So, definitely understand the appeal for some sort of "punishment" against bad faith lawmaking, etc. Even if untenable in reality.