-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Secret Court OKs Broad Wiretap Powers
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-James Madison
Well that's quite a misrepresentation of their ruling. Few things in the world are black and white, constitutional issues especially. There is no clear line of demarcation; 'this is clearly constitutional, but this clearly isn't, and the line which delineates the two is right here.' Sorry, it doesn't work like that, only the ignorant and overly simplistic believe it does.
What the justices stated was not that the new law is unconstitutional, but that if the government's burden does not meet the minimum standards of 4th Amendment protection, it does not fall so short of those standards as to be plainly or clearly unconstitutional. They stated the exact opposite of what you stated, but you're too stupid to know it.
IOW, the justices acknowledge that there is a grey area, and that this law falls within that grey area. Under different circumstances or times, the law might run afoul of 4th amendment protection, because there would be no nexus between national security or public safety and the broadened wiretap rules.
But due to the times in which we find ourselves and the acknowledged dangers from which the government has a duty to protect the public and national security, AND because the broadened portion of the wiretap rules are narrowly tailored to a specific state interest (suspect class), the government CAN show a constitutional nexus between these wiretaps and state security, even if barely.
Now go run and hide under your bed because the fascists are at your doorstep.
How does this law (and many many others) comply with Article I section 8 of the Constitution?
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
as I understand it, section eight defines what Congress is allowed to pass laws about. (at least until there appears to have been some sort of ruling altering what they are allowed to pass)
How does the supreme court justify allowing laws that clearly are not covered by secion eight to be passed?
Have they simply taken the stance of "it doesn't say we can't"?
Vic
Elite Member
Oh, so now it's not only a "Living Document" but contains a large "gray area" too, eh?
What if this was the 2nd Amendment? How would you feel about it then? How big should that "gray area" be?
Maybe you should try make your politics consistent instead of just consistently one-sided, ok?
UltraQuiet
Banned
You really are quite daft. First off thanks for proving my point about posting some two second sound bite as the gospel truth. It just brings to specific relief my point about reading the headlines and getting your info from CNN or Fox or whatever. Secondly I only used Poindexter as an example because the motto of his new office certainly seems applicable in this case. If you'll have whoever reads to you read you my post again you'll notice that no where in that post did I try to extoll the virtues (or lack thereof) of the good Admiral. As for calling the networks what would be the point. For the most part their sole purpose is to make money. They will twist and or sensationalize the truth just enough to get you to sit through two extra commercial breaks just you can hear some "expert" give you his version of the truth. The trick is to be able to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Scientia Est Potentia
Today's Ruling
Our constitution was designed to limit government and to protect us from government. Given too much authority, any form of government becomes corrupt, even a democracy/republic.
The very fact this appeals hearing was conducted in complete secrecy should send chills up your spine. Given the search and seizure abuse happening each and every day I can expect this new power will be abused in the same manner.
Welcome to the future, comrade.
The very fact this appeals hearing was conducted in complete secrecy should send chills up your spine. Given the search and seizure abuse happening each and every day I can expect this new power will be abused in the same manner.
Welcome to the future, comrade.
UltraQuiet
Banned
If you will notice that the courts ruling is available online. You will also notice that some of it is [ ] bracketed indicating that content has been taken out because of national security interests. I am only guessing but judging by the placement of the brackets in the ruling I would say that specific intel gathering methods and capabilities were being discussed.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
No Dave I am not daft, merely annoyed. Ok for the heck of it, let's say I was completely wrong (of which I am not convinced. That will be for further review). My problem is the lack of courtesy you display to those who voice a contrary point of view. Frankly I AM upset that there is the possibility that this may be true. There have been points of view that you have expressed I strongly disagreed with, but when voicing a differing opinion, have never disparaged your intent or intelligence. People have different ways of expressing themselves, but in a civilized society, debate is best served by restraint. I lost my temper, and that is rare for me. I would prefer to move things back to a more civilized level, but as O'Reilly says, I will give you the last word on that.
The courts have often times given broad powers to government during times of crisis and promptly yanked back those privlidges after the crisis is past. Throughout our history in times of war and threats to this country we HAVE sacrificed freedom in the name of security. Just because we choose to allow a restriction in freedom at this point to curtail the threat to our nation does NOT mean that the restriction will remain in place after the threat is passed. Our courts allowed the detention of Hundereds of thousands of Japanesse in this country during a war, a clear violation of constitutional protections. After the war was over and the threat was passed then the court acted to stop the violations.
Our courts are made up of people who have devoted their lives to the law. Being a Judge is a thankless position. If you bothered to read any of the judgements of the supreme court (the actual briefs) you would understand that our court system weighs heavily the rights of the people in every decision they make. They are NOT bound to any political party, executive or legisilative branch. They are not given to flights of fancy with what's popular, for every decision they make they consider the intent of our founders and what the meaning of that document is today. This is the grey area and the reason the Constitution is a living document. We the people mold that document through our representatives, it has been admended less than 30 times in over 200 years and the first 10 of those where as it was passed. I'm babbeling so I will stop.
The simple fact is, the constitution with all it's wonderful protections and freedoms is meaningless if we aren't willing to make temporary sacrifices to protect it. As Moonbeam allueded to though, we must tread this path cautioutly and when the threat is passed we must challenge the rules and take the power back to the people.
rahvin, that's sound thinking but the War on Terror is an endless endeavor. These new powers will never be revoked. It will become political suicide to even hint of reducing government's authority to "win the war on terror" just as it's currently political suicide for anyone in office to try to end the war on drugs.
MinorityReport
Senior member
Another step closer to being a communist state.
What we hated and fougth against for last 50 years ... very same we turning into.
Sad day 🙁
What we hated and fougth against for last 50 years ... very same we turning into.
Sad day 🙁
Well, if it weren't a 'living document', we wouldn't be having this discussion because telephones weren't invented in 1789 now...were they? The realistic protections of the constitution would be perpetually "frozen", applying only to the extent that contemporary realities were also true in 1789, including 1789 technology.
Speaking of which, since you claim there is no grey area, then you must be privileged to some 'missing' part of the Federalist Papers which I haven't seen. You know, the one where Madison writes specifically about telephone conversations and the 4th amendment, and thus no rules of judicial construction apply here because its all there in writing. I'd love to see this 'secret' Federalist publication some time. Or was it the Debates in the Convention? You know, I skimmed several pages when reading the Debates, so its possible I missed the part about telephones and the 4th Amendment. Just provide a link and I'll give it a thorough reading.
If my politics weren't one-sided, then I couldn't have a consistent position now, could I?
Speaking of the 2nd Amendment, I support the 5th Circuit's ruling in US v. Emerson, where Justices Garwood and DeMoss essentially struck a compromise, affirming there is indeed a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms which extends to the individual, but that the challenged portion of USC 18 § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) also falls within a similar grey area, and if the statute does not meet minimum 2nd Amendment protections, it also does not fall so short of the minimum burdens that it was plainly unconstitutional, by how ever slight of margin the government made its case.
I said I was progun, and you'll not find a better supporter of gun rights, but what I am not is a whacky libertarian or 2nd Amendment absolutist. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE and all are subject to reasonable regulation....even the 2nd Amendment.
I see the can of worms you're trying to open here, a debate on the common law evolution of police powers vis-a-vis sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, malum in se, and malum prohibitum, and if you want to go down this road, you may be surprised to learn we will agree more than not on this issue. But you can't just start here, with a law passed in 2001, when the same could be said of 50% or more of the federal statutes that have been passed and upheld since, oh, 1890 or so. This would be a purely academic exercise as it has no practical relevance to modern day realities.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them."
Ayn Rand
Ah, the war on terror. Never mind that the events of 9/11 would not have occured had a) US intel services coordinated and better analyzed the data they already possessed that indicated that an attack of this sort was imminent, b) the security at a couple of major US airports been anything more than symbolic, c) the pilots refused to leave the cabin, regardless of what happened to the crew or passengers, or d) the passengers, having done a quick cost/benefit analysis, realizing that they were being cowed by a handful of men armed only with freakin' box cutters, rushed them. But instead of looking at the situation for how it happened, the root causes, and effective ways to prevent another occurence, we've decided that 'the world has changed', 'this is our Pearl Harbor' , blah blah blah, yakkity smackkity, and that this requires a sea change in how we defend ourselves. We've allowed fear to convince us that there's some difference in holding someone for trial without charge or benefit of counsel simply because the label hung on him is 'enemy combatant' rather than 'robbery suspect'. We've been deluded into thinking that secret military tribunals and deportation hearing are an effective way of dispensing justice. We're commiting forces to the field on the basis of little more than the word of a man whom half the country would have preferred not to have become their leader, and the best assurance he can come up with is the equivalent of "I got a whole mess a' evidence, I just can't show it to ya'..." And now, in a new outrage, we're trying to increase the level of spying done on/to the American people, giving police the right to secretly wiretap a suspect with no judicial review, approving life sentences for "hackers", and we're about a heartbeat away from having recording a TV show or making a mixtape being declared a criminal act, most if not all in the name of the war on terror. Maybe this one individual law wouldn't be cause for alarm, if it weren't for the pattern already established that our current gov't values control over freedom, and some fleeting sense of safety over liberty.
Ayn Rand
Ah, the war on terror. Never mind that the events of 9/11 would not have occured had a) US intel services coordinated and better analyzed the data they already possessed that indicated that an attack of this sort was imminent, b) the security at a couple of major US airports been anything more than symbolic, c) the pilots refused to leave the cabin, regardless of what happened to the crew or passengers, or d) the passengers, having done a quick cost/benefit analysis, realizing that they were being cowed by a handful of men armed only with freakin' box cutters, rushed them. But instead of looking at the situation for how it happened, the root causes, and effective ways to prevent another occurence, we've decided that 'the world has changed', 'this is our Pearl Harbor' , blah blah blah, yakkity smackkity, and that this requires a sea change in how we defend ourselves. We've allowed fear to convince us that there's some difference in holding someone for trial without charge or benefit of counsel simply because the label hung on him is 'enemy combatant' rather than 'robbery suspect'. We've been deluded into thinking that secret military tribunals and deportation hearing are an effective way of dispensing justice. We're commiting forces to the field on the basis of little more than the word of a man whom half the country would have preferred not to have become their leader, and the best assurance he can come up with is the equivalent of "I got a whole mess a' evidence, I just can't show it to ya'..." And now, in a new outrage, we're trying to increase the level of spying done on/to the American people, giving police the right to secretly wiretap a suspect with no judicial review, approving life sentences for "hackers", and we're about a heartbeat away from having recording a TV show or making a mixtape being declared a criminal act, most if not all in the name of the war on terror. Maybe this one individual law wouldn't be cause for alarm, if it weren't for the pattern already established that our current gov't values control over freedom, and some fleeting sense of safety over liberty.
I think we're there.
MercenaryForHire
Lifer
In Soviet Russia, wire taps you.
In Soviet America, government wiretaps you, because corrupt police decide that Annoying Neighbour Down Street must be doing something illegal, and catch him.
Or the police wiretap any number originating in "1-900" and sit in their offices f@ppin all day. 😕
So should we be expecting a mass exodus of AT members to Canada anytime soon?
- M4H
In Soviet America, government wiretaps you, because corrupt police decide that Annoying Neighbour Down Street must be doing something illegal, and catch him.
Or the police wiretap any number originating in "1-900" and sit in their offices f@ppin all day. 😕
So should we be expecting a mass exodus of AT members to Canada anytime soon?
- M4H
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
