Did the term "state secrets privilege" give anyone else chills?
It's not often the courts do something this cool..
(07-10-2013 08:44 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Did the term "state secrets privilege" give anyone else chills?
I'm thinking along the lines of Area 51, not listening to my every keystroke/word.
I wonder if Snowden will testify?
(07-10-2013 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not often the courts do something this cool..
You should like him. He went to law school at Buffalo. He does seem pretty anti- government so this probably wasn't a surprise by anyone who knows the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
(07-10-2013 10:29 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not often the courts do something this cool..
You should like him. He went to law school at Buffalo. He does seem pretty anti- government so this probably wasn't a surprise by anyone who knows the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
Not anti-gov't, how about pro liberty. Which you big gov't tools know nothing about.
Fu__ing liberals better realize that the expansion of the "state secrets privilege" will continue even when their party ain't in power. Which time they won't like it so much.
(07-10-2013 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 11:54 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 10:29 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not often the courts do something this cool..
You should like him. He went to law school at Buffalo. He does seem pretty anti- government so this probably wasn't a surprise by anyone who knows the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
Not anti-gov't, how about pro liberty. Which you big gov't tools know nothing about.
Nice try.
Did you read the article, tool? I know better than to ask that stupid question. You are too inept to read.
(07-10-2013 12:01 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 11:54 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 10:29 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not often the courts do something this cool..
You should like him. He went to law school at Buffalo. He does seem pretty anti- government so this probably wasn't a surprise by anyone who knows the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
Not anti-gov't, how about pro liberty. Which you big gov't tools know nothing about.
Nice try.
Did you read the article, tool? I know better than to ask that stupid question. You are too inept to read.
Whatever. At least you quoted my post so BIE can be happy to know the guy went to his school. :)
Since when does pro-civil liberties = anti-government?
Damn, Robs. Do they send Joe Biden to tuck you in at night?
(07-10-2013 10:29 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not often the courts do something this cool..
You should like him. He went to law school at Buffalo. He does seem pretty anti- government so this probably wasn't a surprise by anyone who knows the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
I call foul on this. The very people who wanted to flay Bush alive for the surveilence programs that he enacted - touting civil liberties - are the very same people who are indignant over people who want to take the gov't to task over the unconstitutional wire tapping going on today. Bush started it, Obama continued it contrary to his lip service against it in the past.
Full disclosure, I used to be a staunch conservative who supported Bush's policies in his first term. I woke up from that folly. IMHO, one of the few worthwhile GOP members today is Rand Paul. Hopefully, we see more people like him step up. Or better yet, we see the Libertarians explode on the scene in a true revolution.
You might want to talk your chubby down just a tad.
Quote:White threw out the plaintiffs’ bid for an order blocking the conduct they’re challenging and dismissed claims that the government violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The judge allowed claims for money damages for violations of federal wiretap and stored communications laws to proceed. He reserved judgment on whether the surveillance is constitutional.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07...eillance-1
(07-10-2013 02:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]You might want to talk your chubby down just a tad.
Quote:White threw out the plaintiffs’ bid for an order blocking the conduct they’re challenging and dismissed claims that the government violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The judge allowed claims for money damages for violations of federal wiretap and stored communications laws to proceed. He reserved judgment on whether the surveillance is constitutional.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07...eillance-1
That's because the case was brought up citing a gov't law and not as a constitutional matter. The wire tapping clearly violates the 4th amendment since it these actions ARE unreasonable searches. These communications are among peaceful citizens who are not a part of the war on terror. So why in the fvck would the government need with any of this information? The FISA courts were supposed to protect us from this crap. Unfortunately, that has been circumvented.
The Supreme Court needs to rule on the State Secrets Privilege. When General Dynamics sued the Government over the cancellation of the A-12 it resulted in 20+ years of litigation that was caused by assertions of privilege regarding classified data. Forget the fact that no flyable prototype of the Flying Dorito ever made it off the ground.
(07-10-2013 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not often the courts do something this cool..
Especially ones in San Fransisco, CA