3 ms·

Maybe if you squint really really hard you can see some legality to the individual components that make of the programs, but, according to the ACLU, the program

by pvnick 13y ago

Maybe if you squint really really hard you can see some legality to the individual components that make of the programs, but, according to the ACLU, the programs themselves are blatant violations of the first and fourth amendments [1], and I must say I agree with them. Edit: Even the FISC itself thinks the programs are unconstitutional [2]. Now you may think the constitution itself is obsolete on these points, but there are perfectly valid methods of ratifying/updating that document other than to completely ignore it. [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-cha... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023 http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-cou...

rayiner 13y ago
Lots of interest groups think (and hope) lots of things about the law. The fact that the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the government's interpretation of the law does not mean that interpretation is an unreasonable one given the current precedent. It means the ACLU thinks it's the wrong one and is hoping to get the courts to decide that way. As for the FISC opinion, we have no idea which programs it is referring to. We definitely need to get that opinion made public so that we can see. There are two different things at play: are the NSA's activities Constitutional and is the NSA adhering to the rule of law? The latter is really about a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law as it currently exists. To go back to my Roe v. Wade example, a complete ban on abortion is unconstitutional as of 1973. But does that meant that the legislatures that passed those bans in 1972 had no commitment to the rule of law?
- pvnick 13y ago
  You're correct that lots of interest groups say lots of things, but I happen to agree with the ACLU's position, which is why I specifically brought it up. I agree that the FISC opinion in question will be very enlightening. Also, I agree that a "Roe v. Wade"-esque supreme court decision would provide a nice degree of finality to the issue, provided they agree with my position :P (kidding!). We were so close earlier this year to having some of these programs declared unconstitutional (5-4 decision) [1], maybe this time around we will be a little more fortunate. Or maybe I'm just naively optimistic. Also, Rayiner, from the based on the well-educated substance of your posts and your profile I have to ask, are you a lawyer? [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisses-aclus-challenge-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-law http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisse...

by pvnick 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Lots of interest groups think (and hope) lots of things about the law. The fact that the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the government's interpretation of the law does not mean that interpretation is an unreasonable one given the current precedent. It means the ACLU thinks it's the wrong one and is hoping to get the courts to decide that way. As for the FISC opinion, we have no idea which programs it is referring to. We definitely need to get that opinion made public so that we can see. There are two different things at play: are the NSA's activities Constitutional and is the NSA adhering to the rule of law? The latter is really about a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law as it currently exists. To go back to my Roe v. Wade example, a complete ban on abortion is unconstitutional as of 1973. But does that meant that the legislatures that passed those bans in 1972 had no commitment to the rule of law?

pvnick 13y ago
You're correct that lots of interest groups say lots of things, but I happen to agree with the ACLU's position, which is why I specifically brought it up. I agree that the FISC opinion in question will be very enlightening. Also, I agree that a "Roe v. Wade"-esque supreme court decision would provide a nice degree of finality to the issue, provided they agree with my position :P (kidding!). We were so close earlier this year to having some of these programs declared unconstitutional (5-4 decision) [1], maybe this time around we will be a little more fortunate. Or maybe I'm just naively optimistic. Also, Rayiner, from the based on the well-educated substance of your posts and your profile I have to ask, are you a lawyer? [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisses-aclus-challenge-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-law http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisse...