3 ms·

First, thanks very much for replying. This the first time I've been able to get direct answers to these questions. I really appreciate that you took the time to

by diafygi 12y ago

First, thanks very much for replying. This the first time I've been able to get direct answers to these questions. I really appreciate that you took the time to reply. That being said, we do seem to have a significantly different interpretation of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Hooray! We've identified a big root cause of our disagreement! It's a start. Additionally, I do not agree that the Legislative has been sufficiently informed of mass surveillance programs, and sometimes they have even been knowingly misinformed[1][2][3]. Finally, I do not agree that the Judiciary have signed off on these programs. For the public-facing Judiciary, they haven't even been able to get to the point where they can address the legality of these programs because the Executive have always blocked with standing and state secrets claims[4][5][6]. For the secret Judiciary, it seems that the Executive has also misled them[7][8]. Also, these courts are not adversarial, which opens them up to severe bias and capture[9][10]. Thanks again for your response. Would mind giving some citations to support your positions? I've tried to cite evidence for all of my positions. Normally, the next step is to try to think of a set of criteria that would settle the differences. Here's mine: 1. The Supreme Court rules that mass collection of domestic information by the Executive does not require a warrant (thus confirming your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). 2. The Supreme Court rules that parallel construction is constitutional (thus confirming you interpretation of the Sixth Amendment). What are yours? What criteria would change your position? [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-top-u-s-intelligence-officials-repeatedly-deny-nsa-spying-on-americans-over-the-last-year-videos/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-t... [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congres... [3]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/sanders-nsa-spying-congress-/4483351/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/sanders... [4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-law-effs-lawsuit https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisse... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._National_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... [6]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt-want-anyone-to-know-about-stingray-use-by-local-cops/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt... [7]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/declassified-fisa-court-opinion-shows-nsa-lied-repeatedly-to-court-as-well.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/decla... [8]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/17/government_distorts_facts_on_nsa_targeting_americans_for_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/17/governmen... [9]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-... [10]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-...

karmacondon 12y ago
Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. Whatever they say about the Fourth and Sixth Amendments is the law of the land. I might change my mind based on the actual arguments used and the logic in the written decisions, rather than the ruling itself. It seems like you would be open to change as well, which is indeed a good sign. rayiner is the one to go to for citations and case law. If you think that something in particular that I've said is factually incorrect, then I will gladly stand corrected. After going through your citations, there seems to be a lot of differing opinion and blame shifting regarding who said what and when. I'm not surprised that politicians and judges would say "The NSA never told me about X or Y" if the programs appear to be unpopular. If the Legislative branch is really unhappy with the NSA, they can propose a budget that cuts their funding. The Executive can threaten to veto a budget unless NSA funding is reduced. The Supreme Court can take up any number of cases, including Wikimedia's, at any time. I'm glad that we were able to exchange ideas, but the decision is ultimately up to the political process. We'll see how it turns out.

by diafygi 12y ago

karmacondon 12y ago

Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. Whatever they say about the Fourth and Sixth Amendments is the law of the land. I might change my mind based on the actual arguments used and the logic in the written decisions, rather than the ruling itself. It seems like you would be open to change as well, which is indeed a good sign. rayiner is the one to go to for citations and case law. If you think that something in particular that I've said is factually incorrect, then I will gladly stand corrected. After going through your citations, there seems to be a lot of differing opinion and blame shifting regarding who said what and when. I'm not surprised that politicians and judges would say "The NSA never told me about X or Y" if the programs appear to be unpopular. If the Legislative branch is really unhappy with the NSA, they can propose a budget that cuts their funding. The Executive can threaten to veto a budget unless NSA funding is reduced. The Supreme Court can take up any number of cases, including Wikimedia's, at any time. I'm glad that we were able to exchange ideas, but the decision is ultimately up to the political process. We'll see how it turns out.