Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Want proof that NSA snooping thwarts terror plots? Stand by, Senator Feinstein says [View all]markiv
(1,489 posts)5. please protect me from the terrorists
do what you have to do, i wont question it
please, protect me i am afraid
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
121 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Want proof that NSA snooping thwarts terror plots? Stand by, Senator Feinstein says [View all]
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2013
OP
How come the Federal Judges on the FISA court didn't say it was unconstitutional?
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2013
#8
It's not Unconstitutional. I explained this all here with appeals court case citations
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#11
Unless you are a Constitutional Law expert, you don't have the expertise to interpret it.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#24
As your entire post is ad-hominem and devoid of facts, you are acknowledging I'm right.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#64
Article III courts are not in charge of sky color, but they are in charge of consitutionality
arely staircase
Jun 2013
#30
how many on here would agree with the courts that Citizens United is constitutional?
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#90
It has nothing to do with "authoritarian" any more than the "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater"
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#49
It's not unconstitutional. Appeals courts have ruled on this again, and again. And the SCOTUS
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#9
No, they're not, just like the fire in a crowded theater exemption to the 1st amendment isnt wrong.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#44
I figured out that you didn't care about the facts long ago. No need to point it out.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#65
Keep telling yourself folks with the facts on their side are wrong and your suppositions are right
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#70
The OP tends to ignore the fact that the FISA court already ruled that the NSA broke law
think
Jun 2013
#84
One request for a warrant among thousands apparently exceeded FISA. Your point is not made.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#103
And the SCOTUS repeatedly has denied cert. on these cases. They think the appeals courts decisions
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#14
The Supreme Court either hears or does not hear a case based on what they want to rule on
indepat
Jun 2013
#37
The SCOTUS denying cert goes back 60+ years on these issues. That's way beyond the current court.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#45
It's not unconstitutional till there is a final court ruling that it's unconstitutional.
pnwmom
Jun 2013
#13
Actually these cases have come before fed. appeals courts a lot and FISA has been upheld, AND...
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#15
You know that prosecutors are denied some percentage of warrants all the time, right?
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#104
The word "warrant" isn't even mentioned in the article. Nor any of the other articles posted
think
Jun 2013
#113
That is not an argument. Plenty of laws are upheld as well. You have no basis for your assertions.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#51
I know, you dont give a darn about the facts. You keep proving that over and over. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#68
Not really. The appeals courts rulings on this have said that as long as the target is a person or
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#22
No, no, and no. Your entire argument boils down to ignoring 60+ years of caselaw and
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#117
I think we'll get a bunch of paper with everything but the words "and" and "the" redacted.
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2013
#69
So it sounds like they're letting Snowden/Greenwald force their hand? Tsk, tsk... ;)
reformist2
Jun 2013
#6
Like a definitive list of all the pot smoking cancer grannies the patriot act has caught?
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2013
#23
She is a vile piece of shit. Senator War Profiteer. That she chairs the intelligence committee is
cali
Jun 2013
#88
You can note there is a real fear there about this information. It runs through responses to this OP
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#72
An ideology that is uncomfortable with mass snooping of noncriminal American's information?
Scootaloo
Jun 2013
#81
An ideology that depends on denial of facts & characterization of any contrary information as "lies"
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#105
If the information is to be declassified, was it improperly classified from the start?
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2013
#42
Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden call bullshit on claim metadata collection thwarted attacks
Melinda
Jun 2013
#61
Udall/Wyden say they have not seen any evidence NSA program has uniquely provided valuable intel
dkf
Jun 2013
#78
Spying upon, beating up and jailing Occupy Wall Street doesn't count. n/t
Fire Walk With Me
Jun 2013
#85
The posts on this thread disgust me. I am no longer a democrat. This democratic party is
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#92
"locking up Japanese-Americans was effective, there were no incidents of sabotage"
Spider Jerusalem
Jun 2013
#98
The outraged demanded to see proof the program has worked ... now that it looks like
JoePhilly
Jun 2013
#102