5 ms·

> Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being viol

> Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
res0nat0r 13y ago
The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.
- tsaoutourpants 13y ago
  Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.
    - hnriot 13y ago
      while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.
      - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.
- john_b 13y ago
  Different courts have reached different conclusions on this matter. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court at one point. Until then, various three letter agencies will treat it as if it is legal and act as if they are immune from consequences of abuse (which they are, presently).
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    > and act as if they are immune from consequences of abuse (which they are, presently). As are you and I. You can't be retroactively convicted of a crime if it was not against the law at the time.
    - john_b 13y ago
      There is more subtlety in this case. The NSA has interpreted the law in a specific way which justifies their activities. If the Supreme Court later determines that interpretation is invalid, they most definitely can be convicted of a crime. If the Supreme Court instead determines that their interpretation of the law was valid, but that the law itself was unconstitutional, then ex post facto protection would apply.
- vonklaus 13y ago
  >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized >No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation >In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Not sure what this is trying to prove, but it has been ruled long ago that metadata (the phonecall records your carrier generates on your behalf while you voluntarily use their service), which the NSA is collecting have never belonged to you and are legally available to be collected by a 3rd party.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      That ruling applied to a very different situation than anything under discussion here. For one thing, the metadata was collected for only one subject, not 250 million at once.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
whatevsbro 13y ago
> The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out. In other words, clearly, The Fourth Amendment does NOT protect anyone from NSA's violations.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

res0nat0r 13y ago

The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.

tsaoutourpants 13y ago
Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.
  - hnriot 13y ago
    while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.
    - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.
john_b 13y ago
Different courts have reached different conclusions on this matter. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court at one point. Until then, various three letter agencies will treat it as if it is legal and act as if they are immune from consequences of abuse (which they are, presently).
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  > and act as if they are immune from consequences of abuse (which they are, presently). As are you and I. You can't be retroactively convicted of a crime if it was not against the law at the time.
  - john_b 13y ago
    There is more subtlety in this case. The NSA has interpreted the law in a specific way which justifies their activities. If the Supreme Court later determines that interpretation is invalid, they most definitely can be convicted of a crime. If the Supreme Court instead determines that their interpretation of the law was valid, but that the law itself was unconstitutional, then ex post facto protection would apply.
vonklaus 13y ago
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized >No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation >In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Not sure what this is trying to prove, but it has been ruled long ago that metadata (the phonecall records your carrier generates on your behalf while you voluntarily use their service), which the NSA is collecting have never belonged to you and are legally available to be collected by a 3rd party.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    That ruling applied to a very different situation than anything under discussion here. For one thing, the metadata was collected for only one subject, not 250 million at once.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago

whatevsbro 13y ago

> The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out. In other words, clearly, The Fourth Amendment does NOT protect anyone from NSA's violations.