ACLU FIles Lawsuit over NSA Phone Surveillance

[mpholland]

I just saw this thread after I posted my thoughts on the subject in another thread. I don't think that the NSA's actions are necessarily right, but I do think they are legal and constitutional. The records of calls and emails belong to the companies that create them. They are not the property of the people who make the calls or send the emails. The information in the calls and emails are private and should not be obtained without cause and a warrant, but the metadata AFAIK is not subject to fourth amendment.

[BlueStreak]

I thought the point was to watch who is calling, or emaling, who and you would only be flagged if you contacted supposed "bad guys"? But, then, it isn't much of a leap going from possessing the emails to reading them. And, who gets to determine who is a "bad guy"? While I think it's hilarious, the scare the IRS (And NSA, I'msure.) has put up the Tea Party and other political groups asses, I don't necessarily think it's right.

Have you considered the possibility that this is nothing new, which it certainly is not, and the leak was intentional? Let people know they're being listened to and they'll shut up, or at least the noise will diminish down to the hardcore zealots?

Hmmm........That could be just sneaky enough to be true?

[bobabode]

Looking back to what happened after Pearl Harbor, a comparable attack to 9/11 to my mind. I really don't get all the hullabaloo over the gov't tracking the mail (electronic or otherwise). There is now some form of court oversight with the FISA deal. If the spooks want to read my personal correspondence they have to get a judge to sign off on the warrant. That's how it's supposed to work under our laws. No one has come up with any credible evidence that this process has been misused. Until that happens, I'm good with it.

Hearing idiots like Rand Paul floating tin foil hat nonsense is no surprise. Monkeys like that one have been throwing turds at the President since day one with nary a one sticking.

The ACLU suit is the check against over reaching by the NSA. It is designed to keep them on the straight and narrow. So, I don't have any issue with it, either. In fact, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive despite the OPs intent.

[BlueStreak]

I've always liked the ACLU, even at the times when I thought they were being ridiculous. IMO, they have a fairly good understanding of the constitution. I'm subscribed to their website.

I was following a case a while back wherein a group of Christians who were being sued over properly zoned land they had bought to build a church. An Atheist who passed by on her way to work complained that seeing the church every day would offend her.

The church people were surprised when the ACLU offered to take up the case on their behalf because they thought, erroneously, that the ACLU was unfairly biased against Christians. (With a wink to the GOP propaganda machine.) I don't recall all the particulars, but I do know they won their case and the church was built.

If you think they only take one side or champion "pro-big government Liberalism", you have been watching too much FoxNews and need to get a grip.

Anyhow, to get back on track.

Rand Paul is another ass trying to appeal to a narrow base of Libertarian zealots. This helped him get to where he is, but I doubt he'll get much further.

Dave

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Rand Paul is another ass trying to appeal to a narrow base of Libertarian zealots. This helped him get to where he is, but I doubt he'll get much further.

Dave

I think the GOP would actually like to nominate him for 2016, but I don't think they will because their nominee will need to be a bit more appealing to the masses if they are going to stand a chance next term. OTOH, WTF do they know about appealing to the masses anymore?

[whell]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I think the GOP would actually like to nominate him for 2016, but I don't think they will because their nominee will need to be a bit more appealing to the masses if they are going to stand a chance next term. OTOH, WTF do they know about appealing to the masses anymore?

Nothing, which is the only point I'll echo in this post.

The GOP party apparatus wants absolutely nothing to do with the likes of Rand Paul. It appears Jeb is the current front runner, which absolutely makes me want to find a bucket and puke my guts out.

Jeb - "we need more immigrants because they're more fertile" and the more immigrants we bring in the more tax revenue they'll generate for our government that's going broke.

Stop this ride. I want to get off.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Nothing, which is the only point I'll echo in this post.

The GOP party apparatus wants absolutely nothing to do with the likes of Rand Paul. It appears Jeb is the current front runner, which absolutely makes me want to find a bucket and puke my guts out.

Jeb - "we need more immigrants because they're more fertile" and the more immigrants we bring in the more tax revenue they'll generate for our government that's going broke.

Stop this ride. I want to get off.

I think I could support a Republican of the pragmatic technocrat ilk (Mitch Daniels), but they are in short supply and have little appeal to the rabid base (see Jon Huntsman).

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Nothing, which is the only point I'll echo in this post.

The GOP party apparatus wants absolutely nothing to do with the likes of Rand Paul. It appears Jeb is the current front runner, which absolutely makes me want to find a bucket and puke my guts out.

Jeb - "we need more immigrants because they're more fertile" and the more immigrants we bring in the more tax revenue they'll generate for our government that's going broke.

Stop this ride. I want to get off.

I think Palin is going to run...

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Nothing, which is the only point I'll echo in this post.

The GOP party apparatus wants absolutely nothing to do with the likes of Rand Paul. It appears Jeb is the current front runner, which absolutely makes me want to find a bucket and puke my guts out.

Jeb - "we need more immigrants because they're more fertile" and the more immigrants we bring in the more tax revenue they'll generate for our government that's going broke.

Stop this ride. I want to get off.

So who would be your ideal candidate?

Regards,

D-Ray

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think I could support a Republican of the pragmatic technocrat ilk (Mitch Daniels), but they are in short supply and have little appeal to the rabid base (see Jon Huntsman).

Huntsman was my pick for 2012.