9th circuit void part of the 1st Amendment

appeals court oks warrantless wiretapping

and you have no recourse against the government.

The federal government may spy on Americans’ communications without warrants and without fear of being sued, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a decision reversing the first and only case that successfully challenged President George W. Bush’s once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program.

“This case effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs’ ongoing attempts to hold the executive branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization,” a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. (.pdf)

The case concerned a lower court decision in which two American attorneys — who were working with the now-defunct al-Haramain Islamic Foundation — were awarded more than $20,000 each in damages and their lawyers $2.5 million in legal fees after a tortured legal battle where they proved they were spied on without warrants.

They sued under domestic spying laws Congress adopted in the wake of President Richard M. Nixon’s Watergate scandal. The government appealed their victory, and the appeals court Tuesday dismissed the suit and the damages.

The San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that when Congress wrote the law regulating eavesdropping on Americans and spies, it never waived sovereign immunity in the section prohibiting targeting Americans without warrants. That means Congress did not allow for aggrieved Americans to sue the government, even if their constitutional rights were violated by the United States breaching its own wiretapping laws.

“Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority. She was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Harry Pregerson. ”Although such a structure may seem anomalous and even unfair, the policy judgment is one for Congress, not the courts.”

take note all of you liberals and conservatives that have reinterpreted the constitution so as to make it show that if it's not in the law, then it's not a right. you no longer have a right to petition the government for redress of grievance, or violations of rights if you still had them.
 
I certainly hope we can rein in the racist militia groups planning more domestic terrorism attacks with this.
 
interesting. out of sight, out of mind works for you?

You are wasting your breath here. These people do not care about rights. They want the gov't to fix all the problems and they place all the blame squarely on the shoulders of the conservatives. Our rights can be removed if there is the slightest chance that it will provide an illusion of safety.
 
You are wasting your breath here. These people do not care about rights. They want the gov't to fix all the problems and they place all the blame squarely on the shoulders of the conservatives. Our rights can be removed if there is the slightest chance that it will provide an illusion of safety.
i know. I'm near giving up on waking them up. I briefly thought that maybe a right that they cared about being removed would do something, but apparently it's more important to howey to blame everything on conservatives and then believe it will only be used against patriots.
 
and you are part of the cause and reason. congrats.

The article states, "Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority."

So, the people do have redress.

In any event the case can proceed to the Supreme Court. I'm sure Scalia will overturn the ruling. He's a literal Constitution guy.
 
The article states, "Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority."

So, the people do have redress.

In any event the case can proceed to the Supreme Court. I'm sure Scalia will overturn the ruling. He's a literal Constitution guy.
how is one going to bring suit for damages, if one can't sue to collect the information to show the damages? or was that twisty tied knot that the federal court wound for you too complex for you to follow?
 
how is one going to bring suit for damages, if one can't sue to collect the information to show the damages? or was that twisty tied knot that the federal court wound for you too complex for you to follow?

There's nothing complex about it. How does one know the information was used if they don't have proof any was collected?

(Excerpt from OP) "Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,”

Let's look at it realistically. Let's suppose a conversation is recorded. Law enforcement is trying to catch a crook so they tap his line. The conversation involves the crook and the person to whom he is talking. All the information is collected but the information is not used against the guy to whom the crook is talking. Should the government be liable for collecting that information?

Let's say the information involves the crook telling the other guy he made a large sum of money on the stock market and is going to take a world cruise. The authorities check and find out he never invested in any stock so they use that as part of the evidence he received money from an illegal activity. Should the conversation not be allowed to be offered as evidence because the other guy is in the conversation even though the other guy had nothing to do with any crime?

What about an innocent bystander in a photo taken by law enforcement? If a picture of a "person of interest" (POI) is taken while at an airport and YOU happen to be in the photo can law enforcement keep that photo to prove the POI was at the airport or do you have the right to sue because they kept a picture of YOU?

Do you ever think things through? I mean, just a little bit? I don't know if you're lazy or you are incapable of doing so but this has been a problem lately as witnessed by other posters to the point where they've implied your name should be changed from "SmarterthanYou" to "SmarterthanFew" or "SmarterthanNone". By questioning someone's ability to follow what, to you, seems complex only makes you appear more silly.
 
Do you ever think things through? I mean, just a little bit? I don't know if you're lazy or you are incapable of doing so but this has been a problem lately as witnessed by other posters to the point where they've implied your name should be changed from "SmarterthanYou" to "SmarterthanFew" or "SmarterthanNone". By questioning someone's ability to follow what, to you, seems complex only makes you appear more silly.

LOL
 
no, since the courts just made it impossible to sue the government for searching your information without a warrant, they can't possibly violate the Fourth Amendment.

Again, how are they supposed to solve crimes if they can't access information? If a pedophile is seen talking to YOU at the airport are they not going to check on you? Maybe the guy was just asking directions or if there were lockers where he could store things until he returned. Whatever the reason law enforcement is going to want to know why he talked to you and/or if you were involved with him in some fashion.

Think, man. Think!!
 
There's nothing complex about it. How does one know the information was used if they don't have proof any was collected?

(Excerpt from OP) "Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,”

Let's look at it realistically. Let's suppose a conversation is recorded. Law enforcement is trying to catch a crook so they tap his line. The conversation involves the crook and the person to whom he is talking. All the information is collected but the information is not used against the guy to whom the crook is talking. Should the government be liable for collecting that information?

Let's say the information involves the crook telling the other guy he made a large sum of money on the stock market and is going to take a world cruise. The authorities check and find out he never invested in any stock so they use that as part of the evidence he received money from an illegal activity. Should the conversation not be allowed to be offered as evidence because the other guy is in the conversation even though the other guy had nothing to do with any crime?

What about an innocent bystander in a photo taken by law enforcement? If a picture of a "person of interest" (POI) is taken while at an airport and YOU happen to be in the photo can law enforcement keep that photo to prove the POI was at the airport or do you have the right to sue because they kept a picture of YOU?

Do you ever think things through? I mean, just a little bit? I don't know if you're lazy or you are incapable of doing so but this has been a problem lately as witnessed by other posters to the point where they've implied your name should be changed from "SmarterthanYou" to "SmarterthanFew" or "SmarterthanNone". By questioning someone's ability to follow what, to you, seems complex only makes you appear more silly.

STY makes a lot of sense when he talks about rights being taken away and police acting like Gestapo, it's when he goes on endlessly about open carry blah blah that I part company with him.
 
There's nothing complex about it. How does one know the information was used if they don't have proof any was collected?

(Excerpt from OP) "Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,”

Let's look at it realistically. Let's suppose a conversation is recorded. Law enforcement is trying to catch a crook so they tap his line. The conversation involves the crook and the person to whom he is talking. All the information is collected but the information is not used against the guy to whom the crook is talking. Should the government be liable for collecting that information?

Let's say the information involves the crook telling the other guy he made a large sum of money on the stock market and is going to take a world cruise. The authorities check and find out he never invested in any stock so they use that as part of the evidence he received money from an illegal activity. Should the conversation not be allowed to be offered as evidence because the other guy is in the conversation even though the other guy had nothing to do with any crime?

What about an innocent bystander in a photo taken by law enforcement? If a picture of a "person of interest" (POI) is taken while at an airport and YOU happen to be in the photo can law enforcement keep that photo to prove the POI was at the airport or do you have the right to sue because they kept a picture of YOU?

Do you ever think things through? I mean, just a little bit? I don't know if you're lazy or you are incapable of doing so but this has been a problem lately as witnessed by other posters to the point where they've implied your name should be changed from "SmarterthanYou" to "SmarterthanFew" or "SmarterthanNone". By questioning someone's ability to follow what, to you, seems complex only makes you appear more silly.

let me see if i have this right, if the government collects information about you but does not use it, then no law has been broken?

this is a bit too esoteric for me
 
let me see if i have this right, if the government collects information about you but does not use it, then no law has been broken?

this is a bit too esoteric for me

There's so much information collected by government and businesses it's really past the point of objection. The "Air Miles" card which virtually every business asks for logs your every purchase. (That's the main reason I don't use it.) It records the purchase which must involve the place and time. Any business that records info, from purchases to phone calls, is subject to divulging that info to the government if the government demands.

I'm sure people don't realize how much they're already tracked. With something like the airport scenario getting a warrant wouldn't be much of a problem. I think ones time would be better spent acknowledging and accepting that rather than fight and "win" a case resulting in a false sense of privacy.
 
When I shop at Safeway, I use the phone number of my best friend's childhood address. The receipt shows his estranged mother's name, and I get greeted with his last name.

When I shop at Fred Meyer, I use my parent's phone number. I know that several of us all attempt to cash in on the store points at Shell. :D
 
let me see if i have this right, if the government collects information about you but does not use it, then no law has been broken?

this is a bit too esoteric for me
Apple is going to see no issue with this because Apple is of the belief that all government is good, more government is better. government is only getting and using what it needs to make life for it's subjects better.
 
Back
Top