29 ms·
Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
- ncmncm 6y agoNow, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)
- mtgx 6y agoNo no, we need to "move on" so we don't hurt their feelings, or hurt America's image (of torturing, fascism, and other human rights abuses, I guess?).
- AndrewBissell 6y agoHahah somehow I doubt this will even result in the records themselves being destroyed. For one thing, the decision would have to be upheld at the Supreme Court -- although Gorsuch has signaled some willingness to put firm limits on this kind of data collection, which might tilt things in favor of upholding the lower court's ruling.
- HenryKissinger 6y agoProbably never, since the metadata collection program was legally governed by Section 215 of the Patriot Act from 2001 to 2015, which modified the FISA Act. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 further enshrined the legal basis of the program. You can't prosecute people retroactively. Even if you could, it's unclear exactly who that should be.
- ncmncm 6y agoPermission was retroactive. At the time of the offenses, the perps knew they were violating the law. If the law authorizing the action is found unconstitutional, then that retroactive permission has been withdrawn. There is no question of "double jeopardy", because they never faced trial.
- chard_slicks_ 6y agoWill Clapper's perjury ever be punished?
- jjoonathan 6y agoNot... wittingly.
- teawrecks 6y agoI get it.
- ndesaulniers 6y agoI wonder if Clapper established that you could lie before US Congress without consequence, or if there are earlier instances?
- nickff 6y agoA number of people have been convicted of perjury for lying to Congress.[1] Outside of Congress, Bill Clinton was known to have lied under oath (at a deposition) while in office, and was not thrown out of office. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936#anchor-HRHaldeman https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...
- 205guy 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North 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 one of the Wikipedia sources: "The most serious obstacle to North's prosecution was the immunity grant extended him by the Select Committees that in 1987 investigated the Iran/contra matter. North's nationally televised testimony under that grant of use immunity, which guaranteed that nothing he told Congress could be used against him in a criminal proceeding, greatly complicated Independent Counsel's investigation and raised serious questions as to whether North could ever be tried." https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm
- bsza 6y agoSeems there isn't https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
- lehi 6y agoA 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_videotapes_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel
- portpecos 6y agoYeah 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.
- est31 6y ago> 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/RMLSenateLetterOnHaspelNomination.pdf 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. Far from "unanimous support" like you claim. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00101 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- stefan_ 6y agoThe historical track record isn't good. Nobody bothered much with prosecuting nazis or nazi collaborators after WW2, Stasi spies after the reunion, party members after the soviet collapse, AT&T and others for collaborating with the NSA on warrantless surveillance (that was Bush) or the CIA torturers (that was Obama). "[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."
- laughinghan 6y agoI'm confused by your Bush and Obama references—both incidents occurred under Bush, the one that you attribute to Bush was revealed under Obama, whereas the one you attribute to Obama was revealed under Bush. Are you attributing based on occurrence or based on decision not to prosecute? Did you accidentally switch them?
- 0xdde 6y agoDo you have some deeper point you're trying to get at? This sounds like a total nitpick, and I'm not sure where you're getting your erroneous corrections from. The illegal wire-tapping was a matter known to the public before Obama's time and there was a case brought by the EFF during the Bush years. The CIA torture comment most likely refers to the fact that a Senate report on CIA abuses was published during Obama's tenure and led to no punishment that I'm aware of.
- BoorishBears 6y agoIt is plain as day the current language in the comment is implying Obama was behind it. A clarification to that is pretty far from a nitpick.
- Igelau 6y agoPolarizing much? When you get to "or the CIA torturers" back up and find the verb. It's just poor sentence structure.
- 37383265253 6y agoWhy 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 legally flawed.< So in this instance the IC was still operating under the authority of the FISA court. Whether the court came to the right conclusions or not is irrelevant to whether or not the agencies were bound to following those conclusions. >The metadata program was officially shut down in 2015 after Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act, which provided a new mechanism where phone providers retained their data instead of turning it over to the government. The revamped system appears to have been abandoned by the NSA in 2018 or 2019.< So the programs being discussed have already been terminated. What more would you have done? Are we going to prosecute judges for making rulings we disagree with? >The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision as "a victory for our privacy rights," though the left-leaning group said it was "disappointed that, having found the surveillance of Mr. Moalin unlawful, the court declined to order suppression of the illegally obtained evidence in his case."< 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.
- darkarmani 6y ago> 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?
- koolba 6y agoThe 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.
- tootie 6y agoThis program was authorized by Congress more than once and overseen by FISC. No one could have possibly believed they were doing anything illegal. In fact, the court today didn't rule the collection to have been criminal as much as they ruled the collected data to be inadmissable.
- scottrogers86 6y agowhat about pardoning snowden?
- mattacular 6y agoNever
- dang 6y agoWe've changed the URL from https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-moalin-ninth-circuit-opinion https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-moalin-n... to an article that gives more background. The link to the decision is an excellent thing to post, but usually it's best as a supplement to a general article (if one can be found) that establishes context.
- enjoyyourlife 6y agoThe article is form https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/court-rules-nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-407727 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/court-rules-nsa-pho...
- dang 6y agoOk, we'll change to that from https://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-nsa-phone-snooping-181157311.html https://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-nsa-phone-snooping-181157..., which links to that. Thanks!
- badrabbit 6y agoYou 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 on behalf of government who is found violating the bill of rights or any restriction set by articles of the constitution.
- ironmagma 6y agoWe are objectively an oligarchy; there's no other explanation that makes sense.
- kmlx 6y agoobjectively your post is false. the US has a flawed democracy, but a democracy nonetheless: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index consider the rest of the countries in that list
- FirstMatey80 6y agoThat index seems flawed. The methodology is not transparent. The Economist is not going to accuse its own ownership of oligarchy.
- rsynnott 6y agoI mean, the UK isn't exactly doing _great_, if you go by the thesis that they're showing favouritism. It's about 0.5 points above the US, mostly due to better electoral process and political participation (which seems... fair?) but 1.5 points behind the highest. For what it's worth, the UK also does better than the US in the Freedom House index, which is _funded by the US government_.
- Phanyxx 6y agoIn what way do you feel it's flawed? Based on what you know of the methodology, what would you change?
- Angeo34 6y ago>implying anyone gives a shit >implying they will stop
- 0_gravitas 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoNow do illegal unmaskings of US citizens[1]! Question for everyone: in October 2016 the head of the NSA did an audit on unaskings. What percentage do you think were illegal? > One paragraph in the report states that ??% of the Section 704 and 705(b) FISA searches made during this time were non-compliant with applicable laws and therefore criminal. Take a guess before you click this [2] link and find out. I challenge you to even find a mainstream news article about this. It's extremely hard, by design. Let's put aside politics and hold the intelligence agencies accountable. 1. https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/line-between-lawful-unmasking-and-political-spying-and https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-sc... 2. https://www.usapoliticstoday.org/fisa-court-ruling-85-obamas-fbi/ https://www.usapoliticstoday.org/fisa-court-ruling-85-obamas...
- ciarannolan 6y ago> Let's put aside politics and hold the intelligence agencies accountable. Lol.
- btbuildem 6y agoSo, do they have to delete all the databases now? Or just keep the illegally collected data all the same?
- jacobwilliamroy 6y agoTune in next year for the outcome of the appeals process!
- lern_too_spel 6y agoIt was deleted in 2016. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-termination/nsa-to-shut-down-bulk-phone-surveillance-program-by-sunday-idUSKBN0TG27120151127 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-termination/nsa-t...
- jimbob45 6y agoThe real lesson of the Nazis should have been that secret police forces inevitably lead to corruption, even when they’re made with the best intentions. The #1 best method of preventing the Holocaust would have been better government oversight and transparency. I’m fine with record collection if it works. The secret courts enabling these secret agencies only help hide bad actors and must be abolished.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y agoWOOOOOOO!
- m0zg 6y agoCan we put James Clapper in prison now, pls? Or is he still untouchable?
- throw51319 6y agoWhat did he do?
- m0zg 6y agoOrdered this bulk collection, then lied under oath that it wasn't happening. Would get away with it, too, if it wasn't for Snowden.
- throw51319 6y agoDoes bulk/metadata analysis even count though? It's not like somebody is personally going through your data. It's just a system that can infer the few records that are of interest. I'd rather have that, and allow us to stay protected against terrorists or spies from China/Russia... than play by some arbitrary rules and then get destroyed one day.
- m0zg 6y ago> stay protected against terrorists or spies from China/Russia That's not what it's being used for. It's a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment. Whatever remains of it today, anyway. You don't get to do what amounts to a search without a court order with US citizens.
- LatteLazy 6y agoThis puts scotus in a difficult position. They've generally refused to hear national security cases. Now they'll have to...
- fortran77 6y agoThey don't have to. They can let the lower court's decision stand.
- eganist 6y agoThe lower court's decision standing enables litigation against the federal government and the NSA specifically.
- vinay427 6y agoAre you implying that you think SCOTUS would consequently feel forced to overturn the ruling? If so, I don't follow. Wouldn't these subsequent legal proceedings have their own minutiae that lead courts to make varying decisions?
- vinceguidry 6y agoNah. They'll just quietly refuse to hear it and nothing will change.
- mLuby 6y agoOur 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 to mess up. "You can't shut down the NSA for a year, what about the commies and the terrorists?" Yes that would be bad, so make sure it won't happen. #Incentives Nothing is too big to fail.
- Roboprog 6y agoIf corporations are people, they need to face imprisonment and capital punishment, too eh? Charters can be suspended or revoked.
- raincom 6y agoExcept 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 judges, lawyers are not keen to press charges against an individual just because such an individual is part of some kind of collective responsibility.
- mLuby 6y agoI'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.
- raincom 6y agoI don't disagree with your original points. It is an issue of enforcement. Collusion between individuals or between groups is really hard to prove, except in war crimes/mafia wars/etc.
- vvpan 6y agoPardon Snowden.
- Zenbit_UX 6y agoHard 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.
- dx87 6y agoWell, we can't forget that he also took a bunch of information that had nothing to do with this ruling.
- iratewizard 6y agoHe learned from his employer to cast a wide net.
- hosteur 6y agoAnd he published none of it. He gave it to a few trusted journalists exactly to have them sort out what was not deemed in the public interest.
- throw51319 6y agoSo 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.
- mLuby 6y agoHe 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.
- george120 6y agoThe 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-Strategies.html?m=1 https://www.bloggerzune.com/2020/06/10-Most-Important-SEO-St...
- ab_testing 6y agoIsn'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.
- topspin 6y agoThe 9th is being flipped or has already flipped[1], depending on whom you ask. Trump has made 10 appointment to the 9th. [1] Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuit https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-co...
- leeoniya 6y ago> But she said even if Moalin and his co-defendants had clear notice of that, it wouldn't have helped their defense. parallel construction is a hell of a thing
- tehjoker 6y agoLol, they only make rulings like this after the act was already committed and the NSA already stopped using phone metadata so nothing material changes. Even the people imprisoned over the phone data, we are assured that it was so minor and insignificant nothing important about their case should change. Make no mistake, this is just a way for the intelligence services to pretend as though there's some kind of legality and court oversight to what they are doing.
- variadico 6y agosurprised-pikachu.jpg
- jokit 6y agoThat's the trouble with power.. sooner or later it is wielded by someone you don't control. It's not the abuse of power that is the problem but the power to abuse. http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.htm http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.h...
- ineedasername 6y agoUnfortunately, this is: 1) Only a 3 judge panel, so their will be an appeal for the full court to here the case. 2) Not yet over even if the full panel agrees, because then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. So it could still be years before the issue is finally
- dav43 6y agoThe fact this has taken so long to process - and by all means not complete yet - doesn’t paint a pretty picture of the system as a whole.
- burtonator 6y agoThe 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.
- Ansil849 6y agoThis question is meant in good faith, not to be facetious but out of a genuine lack of understanding: now what? If this action was ruled illegal, then someone in the chain of command ordered this illegal action - in other words did something illegal. Is the individual who ordered the illegal action going to be disciplined? Is anyone?
- alfiedotwtf 6y agoLol, of course nobody will be disciplined
- Ansil849 6y agoCynicism aside, I genuinely don't understand how the legal system works where an action may be found illegal - with no actual penalties despite organizations and persons having committed that action.
- dleslie 6y agoFinding a wrongdoing and finding a wrongdoer are two very different problems. I can observe that something has been stolen and still not know who stole it. This is made much more difficult with the creation of legal entities designed with the explicit purpose of shielding wrongdoers from accountability; like corporations. The idea, as we're told, is that society benefits by shielding risk-takers from accountability; and so we balance this by making it incredibly difficult to hold organizations and the individuals within accountable for their collective wrongs. No, it's not equitably balanced.
- rtx 6y agoSometimes we have to pretend things. This helps keep the natural order.
- Zak 6y agoThere are usually no legal penalties for acts by government agencies found to be illegal, but done in good faith.
- 6y ago
- twirlock 6y agoWhoopti freaking doo
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nowandlater 6y ago“Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” ... and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This document matters. It’s a fucking miracle it even exists — still.
- ghayes 6y agoThis ruling is much more likely to be related to the 4th Amendment search and seizure clause or the 14th Amendment Due Process clause.
- Ice_cream_suit 6y agoWhen the President is protecting war criminals, anything goes....
- jxramos 6y agoIt wasn't illegal, it was prelegal ;-)
- theflyy 6y agoBut its affect our privacy too. https://www.theflyy.com/blog/how-appbrowzer-hit-1-lac-downloads-in-24-hours/ https://www.theflyy.com/blog/how-appbrowzer-hit-1-lac-downlo...
- AnonHP 6y agoWhenever I see such news and then look around at what they’ve been doing and continue to do (revealed sometimes in congressional hearings), it seems to me that the executive and the legislature are truly toothless in the face of these three-letter agencies. Nothing they say or put forth as law will be obeyed. So why even have laws then? Then you also have top representatives from these agencies lying outright in public hearings with hardly a consequence. There ought to be criminal proceedings and punishments for this. A resignation here and there isn’t enough (one way they’d handle that is by joining the privacy sector and getting back into the game by proxy).
- AndrewBissell 6y ago> it seems to me that the executive and the legislature are truly toothless in the face of these three-letter agencies. This is by design, a design which was cemented in place on November 22, 1963. If real accountability ever comes to the intelligence agencies, it won't come from the executive or legislative branches over which they exert a lethal veto.
- jacobn 6y agoFor those of us with less detailed knowledge of US history: I take it you are referring to the assassination of president John F Kennedy?
- AndrewBissell 6y agoYes. The CIA had already started circumventing the POTUS's executive authority in Eisenhower's administration with unauthorized U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union, but it was when a rogue faction within it assassinated Kennedy (with some "special" help) that the CIA became the final word on any matters of real consequence to the U.S. empire.
- chmod775 6y agoAssuming the CIA assassinated a president because at one point someone gave a command without being explicitly authorized from their superior is quite a leap, don't you think? I have heard many different equally baseless conspiracy conspiracy theories about this by now, and they all have two things in common: They each conflict with the other theories and their adherents all sound utterly convinced they are right. Which tells you something about people and their theories.
- fareesh 6y agoIn operation crossfire hurricane, the FBI doctored an email and used its contents as part of an effort to get a FISA warrant to spy on a member of the incoming administration. This gave them access to listen to conversations of anyone 2 levels of connection away from the target. They also withheld exculpatory evidence at the time of requesting the warrant, and relied on a fictional document paid for by the opposing political party. This was used as a basis to conduct a 2 year long investigation into collusion between the campaign and the Russian government, which resulted in the conviction of Michael Cohen for tax evasion and perjury, and Paul Manafort for tax fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy all of which predated the campaign and had nothing to do with it. Not only are these agencies spying based on fabricated evidence, they are using the spying to kick off independent investigations, each of which unveil various unrelated crimes, which they then prosecute. The whole system is rotten to its core.
- autisticcurio 6y agoWell the security services in the UK, will enter your house and wipe your backups and handdrives whilst you are on holiday and there is nothing you can do about it. They also carry out secret operations on primary school kids phishing for information, speaking from experience and hindsight. Nothing is off limits.
- bosswipe 6y agoYou present a very one-side of view of that story that has been extremely muddied by a constant stream of conspiracy theories and misinformation from everyone including the president. Even though I agree with Trump on some things and dislike Biden the lying, conspiracy theories and general disrespect for our democracy is completely disqualifying in my book.
- fareesh 6y agoThe conspiracy theory is that the agency conspired to do this for political reasons. Even if you discount that entirely it does not take away from the fact that this is possible and happened, and that in itself ought to be cause for concern.
- 6y ago
- jacquesm 6y agoLooking forward to a full pardon for Snowden.
- arminiusreturns 6y agoFor those talking about this subject, I would like to remind you that it is the surveillance network that is the equivalent of an automated Epstein system of blackmail. Not only should we reign in the surveillance state, but we need to remember that to do that we have to stop being so naive and need to understand that the blackmail system is at play in the legislative. This isn't just overfocus on re-election, or k-street normal corruption or any of the normal accusations against congress we have to fight, this is state sponsered blackmail and worse. To try to fix other issues without adressing the blackmail one is not going to be a systemic fix. It's a root causal issue. So, a question of chicken and egg. What do you try to fix first, congress, or the laws/system? I think congress is the only practical avenue.
- brokenmachine 6y agoSo we can presume that all the bosses who authorized this illegal activity will go to jail? Lol jk.
- mikewarot 6y agoPrediction: In the next few days, the NSA/FBI use their trove of data to track down all of Antifa, and make arrests. It lets the Democrats off the hook, lets Trump say "law and order", lets the NSA keep it's toys, and the risk of civil war drops a bit, increasing National Security. They could even frame Iran or North Korea in the process. Bonus points for the Military Industrial Complex.
- JoshTko 6y agoWhat are we spying for? Rouge states trying to disrupt our elections? Rising boldness of home grown militias?
- tmnvix 6y agoAre the records still accessible by the NSA?