Latest Breaking News

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

45. Kick n/t

Reply to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:46 PM

Dec 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Rules N.S.A. Phone Surveillance Is Lawful in Case Filed by A.C.L.U. [View all] onehandle Dec 2013 OP

this is so sad I wonder what they have on the judge. nt littlewolf Dec 2013 #1

A previous Pauley ruling on DU: "Oh... This Is Rich... Literally... Goldman Sachs Wins Again..." deurbano Dec 2013 #4

LOL, They have the SCOTUS prescidents "on him"... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #20

They "have" a 1979 SCOTUS ruling jeff47 Dec 2013 #23

this blunt tool works, just don't ask us to provide evidence that it does work frylock Dec 2013 #2

Can you think of a reason why the evidence may not be furnished? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #5

i would venture to guess, by the shifting stories of how many attacks the program has prevented.. frylock Dec 2013 #7

You may need to think on more simple paths. Inasmuch as this involves national security reasons Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #13

and yet folks on the intel committee state that there is zero evidence of prevented attacks.. frylock Dec 2013 #17

Who has stated this, I have seen this ask for and it was not given but not there there is Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #26

Udall, Wyden Call On National Security Agency Director to Clarify Comments.. frylock Dec 2013 #29

Let me remind you, this information is collected by providers, it is passed to NSA through Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #30

and this has fuckall to do with the claims of Wyden and Udall? frylock Dec 2013 #31

When has national security been required to reveal classified information to the general Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #61

uhhh.. the classified intel has been revealed to wyden and udall.. frylock Dec 2013 #65

Uhhhhh..... jeff47 Dec 2013 #40

video at link questionseverything Dec 2013 #67

Lovely wishful thinking. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2013 #68

This is the same guy who ruled for Goldman Sachs jsr Dec 2013 #3

That's One Corrupt Judge billhicks76 Dec 2013 #9

Appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton. But keep the ruling in perspective, he didn't say 24601 Dec 2013 #6

BLACKMAIL!!! billhicks76 Dec 2013 #8

Sure, it's not like there's an on-point 1979 SCOTUS ruling or anything. jeff47 Dec 2013 #25

There is no on point ruling. Congress could make this illegal quite easily. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #33

Those aren't contradictory statements. jeff47 Dec 2013 #34

If they aren't analyzing the data, JDPriestly Dec 2013 #35

Because there's 7 billion people who aren't Americans. jeff47 Dec 2013 #37

If they want to search my data, they need to serve ME with a warrant. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #47

It isn't your data. jeff47 Dec 2013 #58

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #52

To keep a history of that data so it CAN be analyzed - **UNDER COURT ORDER** ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #38

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #53

Yes!!! And when the government does ANYTHING to enforce the law... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #51

So If... billhicks76 Dec 2013 #46

No, it wouldn't be OK, because... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #54

Am I wrong? billhicks76 Dec 2013 #56

There are various laws and regulations prohibiting and restricting... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #59

BTW, Welcome to DU !!! (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #62

It would be legal. jeff47 Dec 2013 #60

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #50

Lawful? Fuck Off! The fix was apparently in. As if Al Qaeda doesn't encrypt already n/t. davidlynch Dec 2013 #10

I'm very interested to see how you encrypt the phone number you are dialing. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2013 #24

Off to the SCOTUS. Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #11

"this blunt tool only works because it collects everything"... grasswire Dec 2013 #12

What evidence? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #14

Right. It's "lack of evidence" grasswire Dec 2013 #16

Just because they do not give you evidence does not mean it does not exist, it simply means Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #28

"Works" as in "is legal". jeff47 Dec 2013 #19

One court has said it is "likely illegal" iandhr Dec 2013 #15

Private citizens (cpmpanies) acting at the behest of the police eggplant Dec 2013 #18

Except they are not collecting the data for the government jeff47 Dec 2013 #21

Sold to third parties and subpoenaed in court - e.g. divorce proceedings. (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #55

As I read it, snot Dec 2013 #22

The question has to be worded differently mitty14u2 Dec 2013 #36

How do you think the people owns the phone companies, etc? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #27

Uh MarcoS Dec 2013 #32

If only there wasn't a 1979 SCOTUS precedent on this topic... jeff47 Dec 2013 #39

You are not the Supreme Court... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #41

It's our Senate's pronouncement not mine, MarcoS Dec 2013 #48

They *FUND* the NSA ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #63

Every one of our Constitutional rights is limited. OilemFirchen Dec 2013 #43

911 powers were supposed to be temporary MarcoS Dec 2013 #49

"Just another brick in the wall..." blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #42

It does not apply to third parties treestar Dec 2013 #44

Kick n/t Tx4obama Dec 2013 #45

Looks like SCOTUS will get the case.. DCBob Dec 2013 #57

Whole lot of personal opinion in this ruling brentspeak Dec 2013 #64

I have a question for the lawyers out there lovuian Dec 2013 #66