Peralta writes: "In some ways, this decision is much less important now that Congress has passed a law that changes the way metadata is collected by the government. If you remember, after a fierce battle, both houses of Congress voted in favor of a law that lets phone companies keep that database but still allows the government to query it for specific data."
An aerial view of the National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Maryland. (photo: Reuters)
US Appeals Court Overturns Decision That NSA Metadata Collection Was Illegal
28 August 15
three-judge panel for a U.S. appeals court has thrown out a lower-court decision that sought to stop the NSA from continuing to collect metadata on phone calls made by Americans.
The lower court ruling had found that the practice was unconstitutional.
In some ways, this decision is much less important now that Congress has passed a law that changes the way metadata is collected by the government. If you remember, after a fierce battle, both houses of Congress voted in favor of a law that lets phone companies keep that database but still allows the government to query it for specific data.
The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia still decided to take on the case, because that new program doesn't begin until 180 days after the date that law was enacted (June 2, 2015).
Until then, and as a result of this decision, the NSA is allowed to continue with its metadata collection program.
The court reversed a decision by Judge Richard Leon and sent it back to him for further proceedings.
This court did not make its decision on Constitutional terms; instead, it ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to receive a preliminary injunction. The court sent the case back to Judge Leon to see if the plaintiffs could cobble up more evidence showing they are being directly targeted by the bulk collection program.
The complication there is the U.S. government has in the past refused to turn over that evidence, claiming it is secret.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
They had their fingers crossed when they took the oath.
It depends upon who is reading the Constitution. It is unconstitutiona l to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What process is due? That's for the justices to decide. The Supreme Court, in furtherance of police powers, has signed off on forfeitures. There are several forms of forfeiture including IRS seizures, civil and criminal seizures- tools for law enforcement for decades. If the property is alleged to be part of a criminal enterprise, everything can be taken - bank accounts, cars, boats, houses, cash, businesses, everything. The IRS can take your property without showing much proof. There is no requirement that the allegation be accurate or that the property seized be proportional to the offense. This began as a tool to fight organized crime, but over the years, it has become a cottage industry for local law enforcement. The right wing Supreme Court has expanded the powers of the police in this area. Another area of taking is the condemnation of land by municipalities allowing local government to take your home so that a mall can be built where you lived. No one cares much about the civil liberties of criminals, that is until law enforcement gets you in their sights. In Oakland, your lose your car for cruising prostitutes. Forfeitures have grown from a tool to stop drug cartels to a justification for taking stuff the police want.
The Fifth Amendment, among other things, states, "Nor] shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But if cops simply seize and hold it, that's not "use"--and if they take it for themselves, it's not "public use."
Police therefore have ways of justifying what is, in effect, theft by law enforcement.
"Reasonable" does not mean what it means in common usage; it means the cop has to to supply a valid reason. Suspicion that you are going to use it to commit a crime has been held to be a valid reason.
1) no charges are filed,
2) charges are filed but dismissed,
3) the charges are adjudicated in their favor,
4) the property seized is greater in value than the fines resulting from any conviction.
Second, since they don't know these seizures are legal, they don't know there is a problem until THEIR property gets confiscated.
Third, in not knowing there is a problem, people don't realize that the best remedy is to seek to have their State laws governing seizure of property amended. In States that do not have a ballot measure process, this means the only course of action is to persuade the State legislature to act, not an easy thing. For States like California, should the legislature prove unresponsive, people could organize to write amendments to State law and submit them to the voters. Frankly, if I were a California legislator, I would much prefer my house amend the law rather than trust amending to a group whose focus was on retrieving personal property and who probably didn't give a rat's ass about the valid reasons to allow seizure AND RETENTION of personal property.
In many cases, i.e. "U.S. v.s. $4,000", or "U.S. v.s. White Cadillac", the costs to the citizen in both time and money will far exceed the value of either the cash or the property described above.
Local Statutes will also see to that.
The New Mexican Clown is not kidding.
It *IS* a "gold mine".
The ACLU is the only organization fighting this insanity.
https://downsizedc.org/blog/lets-attack-asset-forfeiture-in-the-supreme-court
https://downsizedc.org/blog/asset-forfeiture-laws-endanger-your-right-to-an-attorney
Indeed.
"None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~ Goethe
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
Also we have voted in a bunch of scientific deniers so the things that have to be done to prevent the exponential rise in the climate crises ,
will be on the back burner, possibly until it is too late.