World of Warcraft
It's only illegal if you're caught You only have a case if you can provide evidence.
Since you can't provide evidence and it's considered secret, no one is talking.
Continue on, citizen.
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
Sounds about right I am not sure we can actually sum up the governmental screwing we are getting any better than what was stated in the last sentence.
In short, you can't sue about being wiretapped because you can't prove you were wiretapped -- because the government is hiding all wiretapping information from you.Clearly this was a political decision that had nothing to do with the constitution or the "we the people".
reply to Mike
Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law. That way he doesn't have to bother with you people and all your whining about rights/constitution/privacy...
it would be a much more simpler America !!
it'll be like that movie V, except from the "leader's PoV" instead of the people/rebels.
The point? I suppose I'm not sure what the point of the whole thing is. The NSA is listening, and I think most of us agree that we don't like the government listening. But they're doing NOTHING with all the information... that's the crux of this decision: no one has been impacted. What's the point of a lawsuit where no one was harmed? What's the point of spending billions of dollars to collect information that will never be used? What's the point of all this trouble?
reply to Mike
Re: It's only illegal if you're caught With the advent of domestic terrorism, it's a disgusting but necessary evil. The founding fathers would be pissed at both sides for sure.
easoninRock Ridge, FL
AMERICA! F**K YEAH!
Lick them boots subject!
Greatest. Country. Ever.
Violating the Constitution is not harmful? Really?
Wow, so would they say it's okay for say Texas to declare its independence from the USA because that does not cause harm to anyone? Oh right, it's only the Federal government that can violate the constitution as long as harm is not proved. However, Aaron Schwartz would have a different story to tell.
Judges... are not going to rule against the spooks. The SCOTUS answers to the government, so how could they rule against the government? The SCOTUS is no longer a fan of the "Constitution", whatever that is. Ruling against the spooks wouldn't even help since the spooks don't care if what they are doing is legal or not.
reply to mdlund0
Re: The point? What about the FBI agents who misused info?
I have a problem with so much information (i.e. power) being secretly obtained. Human nature makes this a big problem. Waaay too tempting (after all, no oversight) to just misuse it a bit.
That is what I object to.
The national safety bit doesn't bother me so much (I want them to catch the bad guys), but they must not do it at the expense of constitutional freedom. This is the major objective to domestic spying.
Benjamin Franklin said (at least we think he did): "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
reply to Skippy25
Re: Sounds about right The people get the government they deserve. I'm not sure about the Court's legal logic, but almost 120 million Americans support the Wiretapping Party, and who are 9 justices to disagree? Bush and Obama should have been impeached and imprisoned...Americans instead re-elected them.
reply to old_wiz_60
Re: Judges... Unfortunately, your last statement in particular is very true.
What would SCOTUS do, send the police after the NSA? That's not their job. The President is supposed to enforce the constitution, and he's a major culprit.
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremiumReviews:
reply to Network Guy
Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Ummm, you are ignoring the possibility of domestic terrorism being caused by such totalitarian methods; much like our foreign policy is a source of international terrorism.
Necessary evil? Funny, I am sure that's exactly what the terrorists think too. I find it strange that so much of the behavior we used to criticize Communist Russia for (that would NEVER happen in a free country!) is now commonplace in the US.
Not only is this NOT necessary, it should not be accepted or tolerated.
reply to Network Guy
So, when an elected officials swears to the oath, what exactly is he defending? Seems to me that the government could care less about the constitution except when they deem it necessary to protect their position.
reply to CXM_Splicer
I'm not for domestic espionage any more than I am for Bloomie's dumbass large-sized soft drink ban, and it is instrusive. But the enemy does tend to camouflage itself to appear just like me and you. The digital age has made it easier.
I think my biggest gripe is that they're likely not monitoring the ones who need to be.
reply to old_wiz_60
Re: Judges... More likely, the "conservative judges" actually hold "conservative" opinions about what the government is allowed to do. Elections have consequences, and since Bush was re-elected he got to put in the judges he wanted.
I don't believe the judges are controlled by anyone, but they were selected because they hold these types of beliefs. You and I feel that unaccountable government search of our privacy is harmful, the majority of judges don't.
·AT&T Wireless Br..
reply to TechnoGeek
Unfortunately, this is a much bigger problem than anyone anticipated.
Allow me to place this in perspective.
All of the pieces are fitting together, at least how I see it.
Everyone is counting on the American citizen to not care, know, or notice that their freedoms are being eroded in the name of 'safety', of fighting terrorism and drugs, etc.
But, this is exactly what the People want, at least those who were emotionally impacted by anything like terrorism or murders, etc.
These people, with their emotions in turmoil, inevitably support any legislation to protect them (and their loved ones) from harm, because they don't want to have to go through that emotional roller-coaster ever again; it would be too painful.
Of course, it isn't just people who were impacted by the bad side of humanity, but also those who are looking towards a better life for themselves.
College kids, people down on their luck, etc., all these people, in the promise of 'free stuff', of not having to work for a living, of having all the creature comforts and a modest living - all of them are lured in, because no one wants to 'look the gift horse in the mouth' - they all have forgotten that nothing in this world is free, everything costs at least something.
The people in Government, in pursuit of the Utopia, desire a world (or at least country) where the fact that it is a dystopian place is hidden from the populace - you know, "Bread and Circuses", right?
A non-dystopian Utopia is simply completely unobtainable.
So, they move, in their positions of power, towards their goals, of creating the Perfect World, despite the fact such a thing is unattainable in the current human nature.
The human condition will not support such a world (or country, etc), because inevitably someone else will have something no one else has - this will lead to the Government confiscating that property, leaving innovation, personal motivation to die off.
Of course, the end scenario is inevitable - with everyone living off the Government in some form, with everyone with equal wealth, there will be no one left working aside from those in other countries.
With no new money coming in, aside from borrowing or some other means aside from taxing people (since no one works anymore), hyperinflation sets in, leaving those living off government money unable to now pay for what they desired and now had.
The Government may become weak, not having anyone willing to fight (because everyone is too busy enjoying their 'free stuff'), leaving the US to be easily conquered by a hostile force.
reply to mdlund0
Re: The point?
said by mdlund0:It is used - to catch and kill terrorists overseas before they can get here.
I suppose I'm not sure what the point of the whole thing is. The NSA is listening, and I think most of us agree that we don't like the government listening. But they're doing NOTHING with all the information... that's the crux of this decision: no one has been impacted. What's the point of a lawsuit where no one was harmed? What's the point of spending billions of dollars to collect information that will never be used? What's the point of all this trouble?
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders.
reply to Be Good
Re: It's only illegal if you're caught Tada!
reply to XANAVirus
Re: Judges... If the government really is moving "towards their goals", ruining the country and forcing themselves out of a job doesn't sound very smart. Not that many people would call our political leaders smart.
Fort Wayne, IN
reply to Gami00
Re: It's only illegal if you're caught
said by Gami00:As the saying goes, if you put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll immediately try to jump out. But if you put him in cold water and slowly heat it until it boils, he'll remain until he cooks himself to death.
Wouldn't it be easier if your Government/Prez just declared Martial Law...
Declaring martial law would be like dropping the country in boiling water. There is no way that it would succeed. However since at least 9/11 and perhaps before, the temperature has slowly been rising under the guise of protecting the children. Or fighting the terrorists. Or Iranians. Or whatever the boogyman of the day is.